Re: updated draft to put F&P in more places

"Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> writes:
> 
> By the way, in the spirit of hoisting faults to the same level as
> operations, I think that if we had to choose between interface faults
> or fault references as the only place f&p's are allowed to appear at,
> I'd choose the former.

Big +1 to this! I'll be a lot happier saying they're missing
in fault reference components rather than the way it there now.

In any case I think we should just allow them everywhere (which 
means just add to the two remaining places).

Sanjiva.