[TransWarp] component path - property name dualism, does this make sense?

[Matthias Drochner]

pje at telecommunity.com said:
> it may be that the peak.model package offers better tools  for the job

Would this give me the flexibility to quickly define new
configuration variables for an object, eg to switch on
behaviour variations? (Well, the mechanics of the spectrometers
has its kinks - that's one reason my original program grew
that messy...)
A too strict scheme, and too many files to edit would
be bad in real live.

> Also, here's a slightly cleaned up alternative to your original post: 
> [use delegateTo]

Here I'm running into differences between 0.5a2 and current CVS:
With 0.5a2 the "ruleSuffix" in the config file is not defined,
but as long as I define all parameters in the config file, they
are looked up as expected.
With the CVS version, the component path within the
ConfigDelegate:propertyMap() method is just "/", so nothing works.
For the former, there is an entry in the CHANGES file. The latter
looks like a bug...

best regards
Matthias