>Hi Kevin,
>
>>I'm not really crazy about I-layers...I'd rather solve the problem through composition rather than inheritance.
>
>FWIW, I totally agree with you. While the i-layers were initially useful in Codebook to separate our changes from the framework updates, as the framework evolved and our enhancements (or deviations) evolved, it ended up being a maintenance nightmare. You really can't avoid running up against what Stephen describes. The i-layer actually complicates it rather than solving it. Some of the original enhancers were crazy enamoured of inheritence as a solution. whether we took advantage of it or not, the i-layer ended up being just a whole lot of extra baggage. As I rewrite all this stuff, I am always looking for ways to use composition rather than inheritance. I find it makes maintenance easier in the long run.
>
>pamela

Well, I can definitely understand that. I guess I'd rather leave that decision up to the developer, though. There are cases where it's the cleanest solution and it can be irritating to have to "work around" the framework because it's not provided. Just modify the manual to explain the pitfalls of always making changes in that layer and how you might be able to use composition instead. Then leave it up to the individual developer to make the decision they're closest to the problem they're trying to solve. Give me the gun - I'll try to make sure I don't shoot myself in the foot ;-)