--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The bugreport says you started w/ Introspection to > get > > here... I wonder if there is some way we can > combine > > this doc initiative with Kev Jackson's suggestions > on > > validation to set up some kind of > element/attribute > > matrix evaluation to define compatibility between > > attributes/elements. Better yet, get this > information > > into a single XML format used in documentation and > > referenced at runtime for validation and error > > reporting... > > > > Does that sound un-doable? > > From my POV, I have more than enough on my plate > trying to > sort the doc out ;-) I'll leave you explore this. > Until now > I've done fine doing my own validation, with little > utility > methods like assertNotNull, assertNotSet, etc... > --DD > Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean YOU should do it... :) I think we all need bigger plates. But that aside, I do find the idea interesting (though since it was at least partly mine I guess I would). Again the biggest win here would be--in theory--a single-shot at validating and documenting task configuration options.
-Matt > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
