On Friday 02 April 2004 00:43, Raffael Herzog wrote:
> Your solution above is of course perfectly usable for my current problem,
> but I'd still like to know whether something like this would be possible.
> With a growing component repository this might be needed at some point --
> or am I getting something wrong about when to use blocks?
Hmmm... What you suggest could probably work, I think... although I don't
think it is conceived to be used this way.
The block.xml is an "assembly" of components into a 'structure'. These
structures should not be flexible, as it will destablize the reliability of
the application. But this may be my personal opinion.
I am not afraid to create many block.xml, laying around which are set-up for a
variant of assembly.
I must also admit, I'm not that used to "include" yet.
Stephen (need your help!), isn't it possible to add the manual assembly in the
<include> element?
<include name="time-scheduler" id="utils:time-scheduler" version="1.0"/>
<include name="event-scheduler" id="utils:event-scheduler"
<include name="hello2" id="mygroup:hello" version="1.0">
<dependencies>
<dependency key="scheduler" source="event-scheduler"/>
</dependencies>
</include>
Niclas
--
+---------//-------------------+
| http://www.bali.ac |
| http://niclas.hedhman.org |
+------//----------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
