--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is what you get when you say "do as you please,
> I don't have time
> to fight for my solution"? I should try it more
> often ;-)
I originally thought about a "scope" Sequential
subclass as well. In fact, when I got into my email
today I planned to speak up in favor of it... I don't
think we should be implementing one thing now with the
promise of something better later. Let's just get it
right the first time. So, that said, what do we think
of this alteration:
<let|scope|localpropertyscope|etc>
<persist property="foo" />
<persist>
<propertyset />
</persist>
<your-task-here />
</let|scope|localpropertyscope|etc>
So that instead of declaring which properties do NOT
remain, we declare which properties DO remain.
Or, if I can't sell that, at least make the behavior
configurable via an attribute and support <persist>
(or whatever) as well as <local>.
Now how 'bout that?
-Matt
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
