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.
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.
And why shouldn't extensions be allowed to create OutOfAreaObjects? Some extension writers will needed that just like the author of fox:bookmarks needed it.