Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Nobody picked up my earlier post to this thread, I thought that my
concrete examples were interesting though :) so I'll repeat a concrete
example again here:
<implementation.java class="calculator.CalculatorImpl">
componentType file: calculator/CalculatorImpl.componentType
- The relationship is obvious to a human
- There is no SCDL attribute pointing to the componentType
- The relationship class name -> .componentType file location is
specific to the Java implementation type.
IMHO you need implementation specific code to derive the .componentType
file location from the attributes of the <implementation>.
I think that I'm agreeing with you very strongly - I just said it a
different way.
The C++ example I gave was a more stark example of the problem of why
there is no direct relationship between component and componentType file
independent from the implementation type itself.
You are right - the SCDL does not point to the componentType file. If
we had called componentType files "implementationInfo" files instead,
this would perhaps have made the situation clearer - that componentType
side files are there to provide extra information about an
implementation for those situations where you can't get the information
directly from the implementation (ie via introspection).
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
