Peter Donald wrote:
> At 03:45 PM 7/6/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>
>> Why not merge ServiceDesignator and ServiceDescriptor into
>> ServiceDescriptor? Since a dependency can specify version, why not
>> extend it with attributes as well?
>
>
> Thats how we originally had it. However a dependency also has
> attributes and it felt a bit wierd that a dependency had attributes
> and that the service definition inside dependency also had attributes.
>
> It now looks like
>
> <dependency>
> <role>blah</role>
> <service classname="FooService"/>
> <attributes>
> <attribute ...>
> <attributes>
> </dependency>
Isn't this going to create an inconsitency with the <service/> element
contained in the <services/> tag at the DTD level ?
>
> so attributes are associated with dependency directly rather than via
> service reference.
>
> Like?
I would prefer that we leave the entire <component-info> as is for a
couple of months. The containerkit package and the recent fork are both
sharing a common point here - i.e. the input criteria to model creation
is the XML <component-info>.is still a valid interoperability point and
I would prefer to focus on the API itself for the time being (bandwidth
issues).
Steve.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind,
> and proving that there is no need to do so - almost
> everyone gets busy on the proof."
> - John Kenneth Galbraith
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
