-----Mensagem original----- De: Alexis Agahi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> stay cool, I'm clearly not trying to be rude or whatever, sorry if I might > have shocked you, it is just that I'm trying to convince you ;) > I've failed (that's part of the game), I'll pay you a bier next time you come > here. ;) If its part of the game you'll have more success kidnapping my dog :-) > so you agree that component could have its own data (even if it is currently > read-only). I agree with data/state. > why refusing to get larger scope? Its just an opnion. I (actually anyone here) can't prevent you from doing what you want and what you think is the best strategy. > I agree with reuse if possible and I agree that I could implement persistance > using current avaiable library. > > Software is a constant cycle process, with perpetual reinvention of wheel. Hence 'Cobol Component Framework'. > I dont want to have persistance inside component at any cost, but seeking for > any matches to enhance the model/framework. Thats the point. I think (opnion again) that it can be achieved in a simple way without extensions. But please, try something and show us. I'll be glad to change my opnion afterwards :-) hammett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
