Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP)

I don't know if this is being put forward as a formal proposal,
but I like the general direction this is going.

Jean-Jacques.

Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:

> A possible solution to this would be to allow one port type to
> derive from another by extending the set of operations
> supported. The description of the “extended tuner” would not
> have to re-list the operations defined by the “basic tuner”,
> but more importantly, the dual-tuner device could list just two
> ports of type “extended tuner”, and down-level clients could
> look at the derivation of the port type to recognize the “basic
> tuner”.
>