>Paul Hastings spoke the following wise words on 2/07/2004 2:54 AM EST: >> might also be nice to have a standard way to install add-ons, etc. > >Not sure that it would work because it would only allow a >single add-on >for a single component (unless you implemented some type of 'context' >where the relevant component would be returned dependant on >the context). >
I think that would depend on how the add ons were implemented. If the registry file just made farcry aware of them and allowed it to load them into the application scope it might serve a useful purpose for some. >I think the component registry is a good idea but maybe not >the best if >you thinking of add-ons. I think any type of add-on >functionality should >be in the form of a plugin architecture where multiple plugins >can take >advantage of single extension points. > I agree that a plugin architecture would be a good idea, but I'm not sure there's any reason they couldn't be registered in the same way as other custom components in the registry file. >Wouldn't it be great to use cfcUnit to check that your extended >component doesn't break the core. Would anybody like to volunteer 6 >months of their life writing unit tests that cover all the core >functionality? j/k =) > I'd love to see something like this for the core, but it's really a question of where the commercial motivation is. If a client needs it you can justify the time and cost. Otherwise it's always going to be one of those spare time projects. Spike --- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
