Sorry to be unclear, I'll try again. I wanted to communicate that I don't see the need for type 3 and therefore your proposal. This does not mean that I would -1 it, if I were a committer. It just means that I don't need it and haven't understood why others do :)
one way to view things....there is no *need* for type 3: all components you could write using type 3, you can write using avalon-framework semantics, simply because the semantics supported by avalon-framework are a superset of type 3 IoC.
There are, however, various reasons one might prefer the type 3 semantics; those have been detailed in various places and e-mails. Most of those reasons contain a value assessment; semantic preferences usually do. Compare it to the age-old debate-for-access-modifiers, for example.
The thing everyone should try and understand is that different contexts, developer preferences, use cases, IDEs....are all factors which can influence the value assessment.
From there, you may begin to see that there is, if not a "need", at least a reasonable "desire" for type 3 semantics.
cheers!
- LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
