J.Pietschmann wrote:

> If we are at it, I'd vote for dumping generating the property
> classes and check the java files into CVS.

+1. I have noted Finn's and Glen's subsequent objections, and Joerg's
subsequent comments. I agree that the general need for that level of
flexibility has passed, and that these things *should* be rewritten in a
more OO way. I may be wrong, but I think most of these classes will
disappear after this stuff is properly rationalized. The vast majority of
the values can be reduced to primitive data types that can be stored
directly in FO Object instances.

I think one other advantage of the generated code was that it was easier to
deal with whether a property was supported or not. However, support for
properties now needs to be handled by the LayoutStrategy implementations.
IOW, as far as FO Tree is concerned, it handles all objects and properties,
and should remain agnostic about how that information may or may not be

Victor Mote

Reply via email to