Re: stereotype service (was: underlying politics)

[Mike Kestner <mkestner ameritech net>]

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> It does not seem to be that. From what I can tell, it's just a spec
> that says "an object that implements this set of interfaces", but you
> still need to QI for them. So really, it's a way to specify
> aggregation, not multiple inheritance.

Or possibly a bit more accurately, "an interface that aggregates this
set of interfaces."  

I just spent some time out on openoffice.org looking at the "XShapes"
and related interfaces because I am currently working on an
implementation of a drawing layer embeddable for the GnomeCanvas.  I
found the interfaces so fragmented that at times I was peeling 3 or more
layers just to find out what the darn thing supports.

I understand the benefits of interface granularity from the component
author's standpoint, although I think the interfaces I just waded
through take it to an extreme.  

Isn't the point of this to make it easier for the client author? 
Forcing client authors to wade through such a fragmented picture of the
component they are embedding seems counterproductive in my book.

Someone wanna hit me over the head with a 2x4 and explain it to me?

Mike