> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Freedom is not being removed. Let get that strait. Assume > for the purpose of this discourse that a framework is > released without "remove".
My point being that such an operation should not be taken without providing an alternative solution that is 1) better 2) easier to use > It is > simply > the ratraction of an abstact operation that cannot be > supported at the framework's level. Nothing more - nothing > less. I'm not promoting or > opposing > that position here - what I am doing is directly challenging > the the assumptions you are implying about A4 and its > evolution. In reality, this email is a fake parade that > argues for the value of something we don't have. I don't get the fake parade thing at all. Stephen, the removal of ComponentSelector and the need for a lookup(name, hint) is possible with the addition of the meta info. The meta info resolution is an entriguing idea. I want to go forward with that idea. However, I want to keep an eye on complexity--both on the container's side and on the component/client's side. Any move that would require more work for the client is a *bad* move. Hense the XXXXManager solution proposed a while back would be a *bad* move. Do not remove a feature without providing a solid replacement. That will help the discussions from getting stuck on "sacred cows" which has repeatedly happening. Too much PFM, and people get nervous (does it really do it *every* time?). BTW, PFM = Pure F***ing Magic. Not enough and people get aggitated (you mean I have to do this again and again?). We have to strike the balance. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
