Ant,
In general, I would agree that there should be a simple and obvious
relationship between implementation artifact and componentType file.
However, consider the case of languages like C or C++ where multiple
implementations are bundled into a DLL. The runtime file is the DLL,
but there must be multiple componentType files. So now, what is the
relationship between them....
In these more complex cases, the implementation type defines the
relationship.
Yours, Mike.
ant elder wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
