On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there is any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't have > a generic <task> DynamicConfigurator that could > execute an arbitrary task by classname, and a generic > <type> or <object>, probably also a > DynamicConfigurator, to instantiate (and optionally > configure) an arbitrary object, usu. to set as a > reference, but possibly for other things as well...
Ahh!! No, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have a task/type like this. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
