Greg, Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I will definitely look into the possibilities offered by newTypedObject(). If it can help me achieve some of my goals, I will be happy. I don't see any point in us trying to change the other's opinions, so I'll leave things as they are - with the exception of clarifying this >>> You can do this of course, but you'd basically be forking the code and >>> opening the door to future incompatibility. >> That is a little melodramatic considering it potentially concerns just >> a few changes in a single class. > > It's not melodramatic - it's just accurate. If you copy a class and modify it > without pushing those changes back into the main source tree, you have forked > the code. > Of course it is forking. I thought that was too obvious to bother stating. I feel that the 'opening the door to future incompatibility' bit was melodramatic. Any changes in the original source tree wouldn't stop a standalone forked project from functioning, and even if a fork was never updated past the very first version, it could still provide value. This is testament to how much is possible with BXMLSerializer now, and the work you (and others?) have done on it. And any time I even extend a class (as suggested throughout this thread), be it from Pivot or elsewhere outside of my control, I am 'opening the door to future incompatibility'. Chris
