[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:20:36 -0800
"Roger L. Costello" wrote:
> I like the Chameleon approach even more! Rather than starting a
> component's life out in a rigid, static, fixed namespace, the Chameleon
> approach frees them so that applications can decide on a domain
> (namespace) for the components. Furthermore, applications can
> refine/customize the Chameleon components. This approach requires an
> extra step but in return it gives you a lot of flexibility. Wow!
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
"Rigid, static, fixed". Boy, can't tell where your loyalties lie ;)
Since this uses namespaces to resolve name collisions, it works for me.
I'm still a bit dubious about not assigning components to namespaces to
start with, but then I am a rigid, static, fixed kinda guy :)
--
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Training
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com
|