Re: [picocontainer-dev] annotations and comments on Pico2

> Well I thought of a PicoBuilder in gems that extended (or delegates 
> to) the one in core, and a NanoBuilder in nano that reimplemented it 
> all (wraps) for NanoContainer as opposed to MutablePicoContainer.
Hmmm I think you should try to avoid the wrapping in the containers and 
builders if possible. Lets say I write a new pico module called Taco 
that is based on Pico and not Nano. Then I want to use in my framework 
taco and nano. If this is inheritance based (ie I wrote a TacoBuilder) 
then I have to rewrite all the configuration by hand, where as if you 
can prevent that wrapping, the model will be more flat and easier to mix 
and match extensions.

Erik.