Did you even read the rest of the message? I'm not pushing a type 3 replacement. You could continue to write components as you wish. Please see the original message and do me the courtesy of reading it. I'm not trying to spark an argument over which way is best.
Which is why the "IoC type Who Cares" RT would be best. It allows enterprsing folks to try something new, while still working with the tried and true.
Since I like names better than numbers (I couldn't tell you what the difference is between IoC type 1, type 2, or type 3 simply from its identifier), I guess you could call your proposal Avalon PI.
Also, if we have an infrastructure that is flexible enough, it would allow us to play around for Avalon 5 and see what feels the best. No need for arguing the pros and cons--we just do it, and it works. Of course, we might argue that the simplified container architecture is Avalon 5....
Until we have an infrastructure that is flexible enough, we really can't start to look at Avalon 5 though.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
