I hope that the example needs little explanation (it is a bit contrived, I admit).
And that is a problem. If you had a real example of a working application, you'd find that there's a lot of code in the lifecycle methods (at least that is the case with our apps). In the type3 example all that stuff would have to be in the constructor.
Because of obfuscation we have moved from DIY to the Avalon framework in the first place. And now people are trying to go back to "roll your own"?
If anything, we'd need more framework, not less. We've written an application framework on top of Avalon to standardize even more. The Cocoon and Keel folks have done the same.
Ulrich
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
