On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Basil Gasser<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > That’s acutally a really interesting case you created, not sure if we have a > bug here. I think you define your parameters correctly using allowedIn, > however, some of your parameters are defined as allowedIn for an interface > type. For example you have <allowedIn repeat="0-1" type="SpecParameter"/> > Now, SpecParameter is an interface implemented by AISpec, RFSurveySpec and > Custom (where Custom is again implemented by some of your types). I assume > that defining as allowed in SpecParameter what you actually wanted is having > it allowed in all implementing classes.
I'm getting confused by the jumping between levels. Classes, interfaces? We should be able to consider this at the LTK-XML level, only, I think. At LTK-XML level, our universe is Messages, Parameters, and Extension Points. A Parameter is either allowed at an Extension Point, or it is not. So if the def says <allowedIn repeat="0-1" type="SpecParameter"/> that means that the SpecParameter Parameter can have a *whatever the containing definition of the allowedIn clause* at SpecParameter's extension point, everwhere SpecParameter SpecParameter appears. <allowedIn/> is a funny contruct from an architectural point of view, but that's how it works. So, I think that's what you're getting at Basil. If so, yeah that allowedIn clause wouldn't say anything about the extension point of any other parameter than SpecParameter. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
