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]
