+1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Let's please leave it the way it is.
thanks,
dims
On 4/24/06, Dennis Sosnoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got no objection to a name change. I agree the OMDataSource name
could be confusing, though it was the most concise description I could
think of. And no, it does not implement DataSource (though it's somewhat
similar in purpose). I suppose something like OMDataHolder or OMRawData
could be used instead, though these names don't seem to me to fit as
well. I know at least a few people on the list have looked into the code
and know what it's doing - any suggestions or preferences?
- Dennis
