--- Tibor Vyletel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hello Glen,
> 
> I am aware of the LMs' function in the system. The
> problem is that their
> instantiation is hardcoded, too. At least, I don't
> see any quick method how
> to make a descendant of a LM and "plug" this new
> class (with just a little
> change) to the layouter tree. 

I see--don't worry, you're not the only one with this
type of request.  IIRC Finn (and Simon) wanted
something like that a few months back.  I believe
involving maker classes to allow you to easily
choose/plugin the LM's to use.  So you may see
something like this in the future that may be of help
to you.  

> As to the changes in the system's complexity and
> OOD:
> Introducing abstraction during creation of objects
> is commonly used pattern
> in SW design.

Just so you understand my perspective, layout is very,
very difficult coding, and relatively few can
comfortably work with it.  (Myself, I can do some very
simple changes, very slowly.)  Adding
abstractions--additional moving parts--can make the
coding even harder to understand (approaching IQ 200
range?), outside of the grasp of even more people, so
it's always best to get the code working first
*before* placing the abstractions in (iff they need to
be put in).  

Also, as I found multiple times, the abstractions can
prevent fundamental relationships (that can lead to
very nice simplifications) from becoming apparent. 
We're still at the stage where we need to be looking
at those relationships.

Thanks,
Glen

Reply via email to