I like it ... but I still really like the <implementation> idea. It makes the XML parsing somewhat easier if the two types of contributions are distinct (they're content is completely different and I will have to differentiate by the presense of an attribute).
With or without <implementation>, this is probably the most sensible option we've seen. -- 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Harish Krishnaswamy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:07 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [HiveMind] naming update > > > How about this... > > <service id="..."> > <contribution service-id="..."> > <configuration id="..."> > <contribution configuration-id="..."> > > How do you like this? > > -Harish > > Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote: > > >>Contribution seems appropriate. So how about > >><service-contribution> and > >><configuration-contribution>? > >> > >> > >> > > > >And, we loop full circle back to how I had it before I > decided to line > >up with Eclipse's naming (what a mistaken idea). > > > >I don't mind <service-contribution>, because its a very rare case. > > > ><configuration-contribution> is just too long for something > that will > >be typed (until the magic tools support appears) all the time. > > > >-- > >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] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
