Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Roger L. Costello writes - > Very good points Paul (and welcome back!) > > You first design suggestion is to keep no-namespace schemas small, so > that schemas which wish to use the Chameleon components in the > no-namespace schema will not get a lot of unwanted components. > > Good point. Since the Chameleon components are context (namespace) > independent, there is no reason for creating no-namespace schemas with > lots of components. Actually, now that you bring it up, I think that > the Chameleon design implicitly suggests lots of small no-namespace > schemas rather than a few, big no-namespace schemas. > Schema omponents, when included into a schema, take on the parent schema's target namespace, if they are not already in it or don't have one of their own. This suddenly reminded me of the new import syntax in Python (I don't know how many other languages already have it too): import spam as eggs This lets you have your cake and eat it too - your components can be referred to by any namespace you want. Seems to me that this is very close to what Cameleon provides. This sounds like a GOOD THING to me. Cheers, Tom Passin
|
