On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:47, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Configuration > ------------- > * Read-Only > * Represents structured heirarchy > * Configuration != XML > * Simple interface and usage by default > > > Adding namespaces to the system will require one > additional string, as the Namespace URI should be > the differentiating piece of information. > > Namespace != location. The Namespace should be > used to point to a validation class or schema of > some sort. This allows us to support fully validatable > configuration trees. This will be a future requirement, > but it should be the desired purpose.
ahhh .. Now I understand the motivation for this change! ;) works for me. > Therefore, I propose we do away with the Namespace class > itself, and merely represent the Namespace with a String > showing the URI to a validation/proposed validation source. I could live with that I think. So under ant the namespace string will return the prefix. If Configuration was sucked from LDAP then it would include the "dc=some,dc=domain,dc=name,dc=org". However the standard format will be to include the http://jakarta.apache.org/cocoon/MyDTD_v1.0 I could work with that. It may be nice to make SAX handler easily subclassable by making String getNamespace( String prefix, String uri ) { } overideable in subclasses. > Lastly, we should NOT support attributes with a different > namespace than the parent element. This is not a clean > solution for configuration. We CAN explore a different > solution for this type of thing (i.e. magic values are > used by the container--so the container needs to get at > the values and not propogate them. -- Cheers, Pete -------------------------------------------------- The fact that nobody understands you doesn't mean you're an artist. -------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
