Glen Mazza wrote: > Ideally, that would be mostly it. My current > design-thinking is that once flow of control leaves > the apps package, it does not return until has a full > document finished.
I think we are on the same page here, or at least I see no conflict. I don't think of the control classes as being part of apps. apps would be one of several ways to instantiate and access control. The only reason I want to put anything in Driver is that it *is* control for now. Please, *please* feel free to refactor the stuff I put in there to better places as you see fit. I was hoping to get that straightened out before starting the Layout Strategy stuff, but I think you and Jeremias will do The Right Thing as you move forward. > In general, I would then +1 you going ahead with your > design--providing J, J & P are not shy in opening up > their mouths when needed (I certainly won't be! ;)-- > If and when it proves more code efficient to place > certain parts of Control in different packages, we can > look at doing so later. I'm counting on getting corrected if I need it. And I definitely don't want this stuff to live in Driver forever. I just don't see the big Avalonized picture yet, and probably won't until it is close to complete. Thanks for the response. BTW, I really didn't mean to press you for the response -- I just thought I had better get moving. I am very eager to at least test the idea of getting the main branch working again so that we can start fixing fonts, graphics, FO tree, etc. in one place. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
