>>Hi Dimitry,
>>
>>I remember asking myself whether I should:
>>1) let the list of parameters of a central routine of a complex to grow massively,
>>2) re-organised the code with some sort of "state-object" (yep just a plain old custom object).
>>
>>I was in a hurry and decided to stick to solution 1). I can certainly say that I was wrong. Passing a pretty large number of parameters ? Possibly that's the the time to incorporate at least ONE "state-object" resource to be passed as a single parameter possibly along with other parameters that may be kept as standalone atomic parameters. It both improves the reading and reduce the clutter.
>>
>>all this IMVHO of course, Daniel
>
>Thank you for your input, Daniel.

I agree with Daniel. I create the object use a Empty type class and add the properties using AddProperty().