On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:23:09PM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:50:22PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> Right. And what I am saying then is you this dummy should be avoided > >> and explicit call of init should be done instead. > > > > While this is feasible its removes one of the main advantages of this > > scheme: A total decoupling of 'core' and 'modules'. > > > > This is admittedly not worse than wht we have right now with our > > factories, but we will not use the full power of that scheme. > > [Well, I think I don't care to much...] > > It is pointless to register an InsetXYZ_Handler before any InsetXYZ has been > created. At least as far as the dispatch scheme is concerned. So put the > init() call in the inset constructor.
Are you sure we are talking about the same scheme? How would I have a factory creating some InsetXYZ object if the inset class is registered with the factory in some Inset constructor? Chicken and egg? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
