On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 14:49, David W. wrote:
> I tend to think of attributes as something you can identify the node with.
> Properties like displayName, description, and version can and will change
> over time, but if name and impl are the same, you probably haven't broken
> anything. When you look through the entire XML file and you think, "That's
> the record for ____", you should make whatever value you use to identify
> the record (it's key basically) an attribute. Okay, now I think I've
> figured out what I'm trying to say.
>
> The mental database approach: make something an attribute if you might want
> to seach for it or use it as an identifier (after all, 'component' doesn't
> tell you anything).
I like. So say wwe were going to declare a dependency of one component on
another component. You would write it something like
<dependency key="some-service" type="o.a.a.SomeService" optional="true">
<attributes>
<attribute name="secure" value="true"/>
</attributes>
</dependency>
Which saids that a dependency of type SomeService, looked up using key
"some-service" is optional. It also has extra metadata associated with it
indicating that it must be the "secure" version of this service.
Any other changes you would make?
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original
dimensions." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
