>Tore,
>
>Use a parameter object. In other words, add all the properties to an object, and pass the name of this object as a parameter. That's the "correct OOP" way to do it.
>
>Would a collection object do in this case? Or an object based on EMPTY?
>
>Dennis

I see no reason why not. Personally I use the ParameterX object you see elsewhere in this thread.