--- 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?


Reply via email to