Good idea. Gordon, are you signing up to check this change in? I assume we'd have 4 classes: command, response, notification, custom?
Let's coordinate on the check-in as I've got the annotation changes (for LLRP definitions) ready to go. Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John R. Hogerhuis Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:36 PM To: LLRP Toolkit Development List Subject: Re: [ltk-d] Should we indicate response type in llrpdef.xml? [heur] I think that's a good idea. I think that relationship can be inferred from the request and response names, but better not to have to force such hackery onto the code generators. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
