Mike

>If one puts closely related classes into the single distribution unit.

Which is what I consider the optimal design.

>>The design of the packaging of classes is nearly as important as the class designs themselves.
>
>I'm not sure about that.

I am sure of it. And it seemed to me a lot of your argument was based on poorly chosen classlib packaging.

>The statement that an scx/sct is the packaging for all items in a single form is different from the statement that a vcx/vct is the packaging for closely related classes. I believe it would be better to have the vcx/vct be the packaging for all items in a single class, even if it is a compound class.

I'm not sure what you mean by compound class here. A vcx/vct does store everything about a single class. It only stores instances of other classes dropped into it for designtime containership. It may or may not store: 1) association related classes this.oX = createobject(...) and 2) aggregation related classes this.AddObject(...)

>However, one is left with the possibility of storing UNRELATED classes and that is too often done. That is the problem.

My point entirely, good classlib packaging is really required for good overall design and reusability.

Mike, the bottom line for me is that the best classlib packaging lies in the middle of this spectrum:

1 class per classlib ... All classes in 1 classlib

You aren't ever going to convince me that your architecture at the left end of that spectrum is best. And I'm probably not ever going to convince you a mid-spectrum packaging is best. I was posting in this thread to perhaps steer others into the green light and away from the red and violet light. *s*