>Jim,
>
>You are confusing me somewhat on this issue. . .
>
>In one instance you decry the idea of having one object dependent on the instantiation/firing order, and on the other hand you speak of design patterns with mediators and delegation.
>
>Am I to infer that as long as you call it something "scholastic" it is OK to do, but if you just go ahead and do it you are counter-OOP???
>
>Obviously I am missing some distinction here, and I would appreciate learning what that is.
>
>thank in advance,
>Jim N
>
>>>Like making a control call a form method, rather than acting on the data itself, is that considered a "mediator" design pattern too?
>>
>>Valerie,
>>
>>No passing the responsibility for something to another object is called delegation. The control delegates to the form.
>>
>>In mediator we have two (or more ) objects that need to interact with one and other, but we use a third object to hanle the interaction between theo others. The third object is acting as a mediator for the other two (or more) objects.

I gotta side with JimN on this. I don't see a problem with either method. It appears to be more an issue of style. Having one or many objects depend on another object could be particularly useful in certain cases...

Matt