On 6/18/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
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.
AFAICT, unless there's an attribute in the SCDL to explicitly point to it there has to be a way to find these things programatically, and for humans to understand whats going on in a contribution it must be reasonably obvious which .componentType side file is associated with which implementation just by eyeballing the files. Otherwise, what does this line in the spec mean: 'A component type file has the same name as the implementation file but has the extension ".componentType"' ...ant
