--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still, I wonder if it may be better to do away
> > this interface and just hardcode the
> > of these objects (i.e. bookmarks) directly, just
> > we do all the other Area objects that are created
> > during the layout process. This would simplify
> > area.extensions.BookmarkData and
> > processing code. Thoughts (anyone)?
> That would make the life of extension writers
> harder. Thus I would
> prefer that TreeExt stay.
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