On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:29, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> There comes two questions for the need for this approach:
>
> 1) If we are talking about NEEDED components that the calling Component
> must have in order to work, then we need to strengthen the contract
> between the parent and child Components. The Parent MUST know what
> its children NEED. Anything less is an incorrectly designed system.
>
> 2) If we are talking about OPTIONAL components that the calling Component
> would like to have for ADDITIONAL functionality, then this approach
> greatly simplifies coding. The Parent still must know what the child
> NEEDS, but is not required to supply any OPTIONAL components.
>
> So for the existance of this method, I am +1--as long as no exception is
> thrown.
+1 works for me too ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
