Alexander Papaspyrou wrote:
What about a single dependency type with attributes like "before", "after", "togetherwith", "whenfailed" and so on? The attributes could then be externalized to an enumeration and extended over time without breaking the core.
Are the dependencies which they are modelling "typed the same"? If so, then describing the type of dependency as a decoration (probably an attribute, but that's a minor XML encoding matter) on the element is fine. If not, we'd be making an unholy mess. I don't know if they are the same or not, BTW. It's just the question that needs answering. Since you appear to have thought about this a bit longer than I have, I'll export my question to you. :-) BTW, the "before" and "after" types seem at first glance to be symmetric views on the same dependency arc. Can we do without one of them? Let's try to keep down the number of ways of describing any particular concept! Donal.