--- Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support moving reference processing into the core.
> This is how mutant
> worked. It is certainly a core responsibility.
>
> It should only be done for addXXX methods. By the
> core-task contract
> those are the elements for which the task has given
> the core the
> responsibility for creating the element instance.
> For createXXX, the
> task is saying that it is in control and it needs to
> do its own refid
> processing.
So the rule becomes, "when writing a custom type, IF
you extend DataType, and IF those who program to your
custom type only use addXXX and/or add(Type), then the
refid attribute will be handled for you
automatically." That's all well and good, but
basically I don't see what it gains us. In a rewrite
I think it would be possible to have everything a form
of add() or addXXX(), the latter serving only to give
a specific element name to an instantiable type. But
given the responsibility of supporting all historical
subelement creation patterns I don't see that
reference processing in the core stops authors of new
DataTypes (including us) having to support refid
through code. I'd love to be wrong, though.
-Matt
>
> Conor
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
