- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:13:10 +1100
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt: > It seems from the Java bindings section of Web IDL that the way to > define modules and how they're mapped to Java packages isn't yet very > stable. > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#java-modules Right, it’s not stable yet. > I'm hesitant to include the module declaration in the IDL at this stage. > Although I suppose I could and then just update it if WebIDL changes. > If I did so, is there anything else I would need to specify in the prose > for this? Not in the prose, no. The change would either be to the syntax of the module definition or adding an extended attribute on it to specify the mapping of module to Java package name. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 22 November 2008 00:13:57 UTC