Re: optional policy

In article <[email protected]>, Dallas Johnston
<[email protected]> writes
.......
>
>The very thing that I have done is "just having a fallback/preferred combobox." 
>Well, maybe not preferred in this case, as I would think that native is always 
>better at the widget level. I don't think that this unilaterally applies to 
>Dialogs though. However, I do feel that what Magnus suggested is much better of 
>an approach, i.e., having the genericgui namespace for widgets and dialogs that 
>one can specify explicitely in the import statement.
>
>If we agree that Magnus's way is most desirable, I could implement it before you 
>could say the phrase, "Peanut butter is much better while eating naked at the 
>pinnacle of Mt.Kilimanjaro."
>
...... I think that Magnus' proposal is similar to mine. It generalises
the concept of backend to allow for (effectively) multiple layers of
backend implementation. By all means do what you think is right. The
only thing I would ask is that you make these optional layers truly
optional rather than required.
-- 
Robin Becker


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing 
your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte 
Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html