Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
<snip/>
Hi fellas,
Well... (sigh)... well ('nutha sigh)
What *does* Finn think, in that case? So far, I've yet to hear a single *solid* argument pleading against the proposed change. Of course, something like LM Makers can be added later on --the proposed AreaFactory shouldn't hinder that.
All we heard up to here is a few vague concerns about so-called increased complexity. What?!? It's a plain, simple, basic-as-can-be Factory pattern for chrissake! It doesn't bite... or does it? Anyone?
Well, Im not trying to start a fire fight here. And its true that the requested change is a simple Factory pattern. I agree the concept is simple. But what I object to is people keep adding loads of pluggable this and pluggable that to a system whose basics arent yet finished.
So all I am trying to say is lets hold off on pluggable interface A, B and C, until the basics are finished. I dont think this is a vague arguement.
It may also be worthwhile stepping back from implementations here and consider what are the business reasons for adding the pluggable LMs? Just because a newbie on the list says he needs them, he doesnt say why, we have just accepted that maybe he does. I think we should ask what the business usecase is? Is it related to XSL-FO in anyway, we dont know. If theres a good business case, then I wont object. But so far, no business requirements have been stated.
<snip/>
Chris
