> > > > As I mentioned earlier: the first subject of discussion should be the differance > > between the classes\objects 'filosophy' of both systems.. I think your choose > > to implement different types based upon functionality isn't the way it should be > > done. I'm supporting the 'one global do-everything object". > > > > I'm very curious why Loci classes are implemented the way they are... > > Perhaps you can give us a synopsis/summary of the GMS object philosophy. It > would then be easier for me to point out differences, because right now I'm > not so sure how GMS is different. > (Please first do a 'lpr messaging_mobject_structs.h' and have a look at the srtuctures...) Every MO has the same structure, features, fields and capabilities. This is done because I want to have high flexibility, stability (no need for different processing handlers), extendability (missing features can be added 'easely'), and analizability (the GAP core will requier a single type based database structure). This setup also makes it possible to realise a setup like the one Loci can offer, simply by limiting MO's in their functionality.