-Harish
Christian Essl wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:38:41 -0400, Howard M. Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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=>
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?
I think this is all right. So I would say
<service id=> --> <service-point id=>
<extend-service service-id=> --> <service service-id=>
<extension-point id=> --> <configuration-point id=>
<extension point-id=> --> <configuration for-point-id=> //only change to Harish's suggestion
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
