On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is debatable
I said I wasn't sure 8-) > I think we should allow both approaches. The main difference between them is that in approach 1 the child determines the name of the element while it is the parent who does so in the second approach. This makes the second approach consistent with existing functionality. "allow both" doesn't sound like a good idea to me, sounds like a foul compromise because we couldn't get to a decision ;-) > Rather than (to take a perverse example) > <condition> > <os type="outofdate"> > <targetfiles... > </condition> Ouch. I'd rather envision <condition> <condition type="outofdate" ... with a new public addCondition(Condition) method. The duplication of Condition is pure incidence, the one in the method name determines the element name, the argument the acceptable types. > This could be stopped by having two new introspection rules: One new rule should be enough, and will be enough no matter which route we are going to take. > But this does mean changing public methods No way. 8-) Stefan
