Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"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
|
