Ant,
Yes, sometimes the terminology can get confusing.
<snip>
The component name may be nothing like the implementation name
How does that fit with the spec saying - ""A component type file has the
same name as the implementation file but has the extension
".componentType""
? I'm looking for a way to make the default case easy, it doesn't have to
deal with every edge case.
<snip>
Unfortunately, this is no edge case. There is no reason to expect the
component name to be even close to the implementation name.
The componentType file is really to be thought of as an extension of the
implementation for those (hopefully few) cases where introspection of
the implementation cannot provide the required information.
Maybe "implementationType" would have been be a better name :-)
One name that we dearly wanted for "componentType" was
"implementationInfo". We tried hard to get that name but failed. That
alternative makes it clearer that the file contains metadata about the
implementation.
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
