Harish's suggestion: <service id=> --> <service-point id=> <extend-service service-id=> --> <service service-id=> <extension-point id=> --> <configuration-point id=> <extension point-id=> --> <configuration point-id=>
Everyone seems pretty keen on this. I have minor reservations about <service> not quite capturing what the element does. I agree that <extend-service> has some unwanted connotations. <provide-service> perhaps? At one time it was <contribute-service>. Last point was the excessive simularity of <configuration-point id="..."> and <configuration point-id="...">. Perhaps that should be <configuration for-point-id="..."> to help distinguish the two visually? An earlier version was <contribute-configuration> but damn thats long. Alternately, here's my suggestion: <service> --> <define-service-point> <extend-service> --> <service> <extension-point> --> <define-configuration-point> <extension> --> <configuration> -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/ http://javatapestry.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
