On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
<big-snip/> > Recommendation: > -------------- > > If we were not imminently trying to release a 1.1 final, I would be > tempted to design and work out a strategy for dealing with this ambiguity > problem, and hash out what the right behavior should be in each case. > However, at this point in time, I'm going to suggest that we resolve this > one as LATER and put it into the "1.2 Family" camp. We're going to need > to deal with it in a 1.2 time frame anyway, especially if we try to > implement any sort of "module configuration inheritance" mechanisms, which > are only going to make the problem worse. > > In a 2.0 time frame, the lesson I draw from this is that we will want to > be very specific in defining how mapping of logical paths to physical > paths is performed, including a way to distinguish what kind of logical > path you're talking about (so that you can apply different rules for view > components and for action components, for example). > > Does this sound like a plan that we (committers) can agree to? +1 I'm not particularly concerned about case (b), and don't believe we should go out of our way to provide a nice solution for it. I realise that some people will want to continue to use action chaining, so we will need to allow for it in some shape or form. However, I have a scheme that allows me to achieve the same effect without chaining actions, and I'm hoping to be able to contribute that at some point. -- Martin Cooper > > Craig > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
