Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Do you mean this (I guess not ;) )?
I think we are saying the same thing.
:-)
Great! ;)
Assuming that we don't want to expose blocks in a classloader to the
client - instead what we want is a expose of the services that a block
provides to the client. However, as pointed out in several of the
messages on this topic, there is a requirement for the overloading of
the result of URI based resource resolution. Given the principal of
seperation of the block (in terms of client accessibility), then a
service is needed against which resources can be resolved based on
supplied URIs (as distinct from classloader based access to resources).
Yes, that's right.
:-)
Now, as we all agree...we only have to get 2.1 out of the doors...
Go, go, go...!
Cheers, Steve.
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@;osm.net
http://www.osm.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
