type vs usage

Type is somewhat orthoginal to usage, where usage indicates how something is used. For example, a given type might be usable as a Drawer, Folder or LSec. At the same time, we'll likely end up with many more types than usages.

I've already stubbed in the internal method for Ark.createRolon and the public static method Rolon.create (for narrowing, though it doesn't really), though the latter should probably be Rolon.createRolon. And I've made the constructor on Rolon Package-scope, as it should only be called by Ark.createRolon.

Probably the first type I'll work on is JSec, because it is so different from the other types--not having a name or pathname. Then perhaps a NPJS class, 'cause its easy.

I suspect some of these types will require a fair amount of refactoring. Sigh. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how it goes. But I expect to be able to move quite a bit of code out of Rolon and perhaps also Ark in the process.

This is all about descriptors (bejavior) and that is mostly what code is all about. The advantage here of working within a Rolonic perspective is the clear distinction it brings between classifiers/descriptors/ledgers. And that reduces the confusion, making it easier (but not easy, I expect) to come up with a good design.

The innovative areas of Rolonics are mostly in the area of Journals and Classifiers, as most software deals with Ledgers (state) and descriptors quite well. Still, the advantages of clairity should not be overlooked. (Yes Norm, I'm paraphrasing you again.) :-)

Bill