On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:27, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > >On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:10, Leo Simons wrote: > >>>Any other comments? > >> > >>This adds additional semantic meaning to the lookup key, modifying the > >>sm contract. > > > >nope. See other mail - it adds meaning to the type not the lookup key. > > > >>What if I have an application deployed in phoenix 4.0 that just happens > >>to postfix about half of its components with "#"? It will break in the > >>next release. > > > >False. It is an impossible contract as previously they were interpreted as > >pure classnames in which case both [] and # were not viable within > > phoenix. > > Now that's incorrect. > That is absolutely not criteria that states that a lookup key is an > interface class name.
Errrrr - look 10 lines up where I wrote "See other mail - it adds meaning to the type not the lookup key." Type mapping to key is a convention that is followed by everyone else but you. Fortress/ECM enforces the convention while Phoenix just strongly recomends it. -- Cheers, Peter Donald *------------------------------------------------------* | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want | | to test a man's character, give him power." | | -Abraham Lincoln | *------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
