--- Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[SNIP]
But are there enough usages
> as to grant the
> definition of a full framework for this pattern.
That's backwards... the original idea was not a full
framework to support this pattern... this pattern is
only one possible way to exploit
Your example has this assumption, quite thin for the general case
that no matter what accion, the set of other attributes and
elements must be exactly the same.
I really do not see to much of the usability gain in something like
that.
Usually you expect different input for different actions. And w
--- Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This actually ties back to what Magesh proposed (the
> dispatch task).
>
> One of the useful bit his proposal allowed was to
> conditionally
> execute one mode or the other thanks to
> mode="${mode}", where
> mode can be configured/computed befor
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have
> > a generic DynamicConfigurator that could
> > execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic
> > or , probably also a
>
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have
> a generic DynamicConfigurator that could
> execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic
> or , probably also a
> DynamicConfigurator, to instantiate (and optionally
> con
--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson
>
> Sorry, what is your question?
>
If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have
a generic DynamicConfigurator that could
execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic
or , probably also a
DynamicC
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > />
>>
>
> The above reminds me of something... for one thing,
> that should have been a in that context, but
> anyway...
>
> what would be the ramifications of having
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
--- Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> />
>
The above reminds me of something... for one thing,
that should have been a in that context, but
anyway...
what would be the ramifications of having
...
and
Et cetera?
-Matt
__
