--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: > [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]
