will commit unless I hear objections...

I plan to change the name of DefaultDOMFactory.java to 
XMLCStdDOMFactory.java.  I don't think this should cause any problems since 
nothing in Barracuda references DefaultDOMFactory, nor do I believe that 
anyone likely has referenced it themselves since, in the past, the 
DefaultDOMLoader used it by default and I doubt anyone changed that default.

The reason for the change is that the implementations of DOMFactories are, 
well..., implementation-specific and it makes it much more clear as to what 
implementation is being used if the name of the class makes this 
obvious.  Having a "default' doesn't really make must sense here because it 
isn't generic like, for instance, the DefaultDOMLoader is.


I am also tempted to do the same thing for the DefaultDOMWriter since it is 
XMLC specific.  The proposed name would be XMLCDOMWriter.  However, this 
change would be more problematic since there are lots of cases in Barracuda 
where DefaultDOMWriter is directly referenced and I imagine this is true of 
applications created by those in the Barracuda community.  So, I wouldn't 
make this particular change without the explicit "ok" of the community.


One other thing.  Currently the DefaultApplicationAssembler does a check of 
whether a particular event gateway is an instance of DefaultEventGateway 
when evaluating the <event-interest> and <even-alias> configuration options 
in the assembly descriptor.  If it isn't, then it throws an 
exception.  This means that anyone who creates their own application 
assembler and supports specifying event interests and event alias' just 
like DefaultEventGateway, but doesn't extend DefaultEventGateway, will find 
that these configuration options are unavailable to them.  I propose adding 
the various specifyLocalEventInterests() and specifyLocalEventAliases() 
that DefaultEventGateway provides to the EventGateway interface.  That way, 
we wouldn't have to do the kludgy check for a specify implementation of 
EventGateway in DefaultApplicationAssembler.  Comments?  Again, I wouldn't 
make this particular change without an explicit "ok" from the community.

Jake