Rob van Maris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [X] -1 (NO), because : > Though I consider the new functionality very useful, I think a better > way should be sought to implement it. In particular I don't like the > idea of the wrapped classes having to call methods on the wrapper, in > order to be wrapped. > > To me, this is an indication that this should be executed as a project > instead of as a hack.
I think even in a project this cannot be solved without changing the existing implemetnations. The 'wrapping' implementation I proposed is even useful if you don't change existing implementations. When the underlying implementation is changed to support 'class' then the wrapping is not really nessary anymore, only to get the extra 'class' security configured. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen | Mediapark C101 Hilversum | +31 (0)35 6772979 | I hate computers nl_NL eo_XX en_US | mihxil' | [] () |
