Cool. I'll get to work on removing it.
Robert Yates wrote: > James M Snell wrote: > >> The motivation was to have a means of inserting an alternate >> implementation of, say, FOMEntry that implemented custom behaviors >> without having to create a new FOMFactory subclass. However, the >> approach is actually bit bogus (IMHO). >> >> - James >> > Yup, I agree the approach was bogus :). We have an alternative means of > doing this now, using delegation vs. subclassing, so this "feature" can > be removed. > > Rob >
