--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Glen] > > > Still, I wonder if it may be better to do away > with > > this interface and just hardcode the > layout/rendering > > of these objects (i.e. bookmarks) directly, just > like > > we do all the other Area objects that are created > > during the layout process. This would simplify > > area.extensions.BookmarkData and > area.AreaTreeModel > > processing code. Thoughts (anyone)? > > That would make the life of extension writers > harder. Thus I would > prefer that TreeExt stay. > > regards, > finn >
Finn, ***be very careful***, the definition of tree extension was #2, *not* #1 (see previous email). I don't like its name, it should be OutOfAreaObject or something like that. Also, TreeExt will be abused, as it could be used for non-#2 reasons. Will you please elaborate how it would hurt extension writers though? Glen
