--- Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did not see the changes. But in principle I
> agree with Dominique
> > that a roledef should have 3 attributes :
> > name, role, classname
>
> Just to clarify, I like the way Peter implemented it
> (binding a class
> to a name, without specifying what "role"s this
> class should play).
> But the term "role" also implies to me a (name,
> role, classname)
> tupple, which is why I'd prefer not using <roledef>,
> that's all.
>
> Last night I thought that <componentdef>, although
> longuish, might be
> a better term than <elementdef> or <tagdef>. --DD
<componentdef> is okay, given ComponentHelper, etc.
But agreed, long. What about <def>? Am I correct in
assuming we'd have, with whatever name:
<xxx name="and"
classname="oata.taskdefs.condition.And" />
<xxx name="and"
classname="oata.types.selectors.AndSelector" />
?
Then what about <adaptdef> or <flexdef>?
-Matt
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
|