On 4/20/07, Ole Ersoy <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Guys,

I know what you are thinking.  Heeeere he goes again :-)

Heh well a little bit but persistence is a good thing.

And you would be right.  But I think I may have found
a simpler solution that everyone can live with.

In order to minimize the DAS's dependencies, I created another
set of constants and I'm naming them like this:


So AttributeType's constants have their own interface.

I see but the problem with this is that you mix the constants of all the schemas together.

My reason for separating schema constants into their separate files was because not all
schema's are packaged into the same jar.  Some schemas are generated as non-essential
schemas and their constants might be best kept with them.  However this approach is

This completely eliminates the need for a convention,
and it's clear that these are attribute types.

Yeah it would but other issues might arise. 

So to get the CN attribute type we just do:

It's short and we see that it is an AttributeType.

So if we wanted to we could keep the
the other constants for now and slowly
introduce these.  That way
we don't break client code, and the
names are shorter still and more precise.

Yeah this might be good.  I wonder what others think.