> 2008/12/15 Douglas S. Blank <email@example.com
>> >> If we do want this functionality, then other tables will be able to
>> >> some of the same functionality as the People view. (Some thought may
>> >> want
>> >> to be made as to store this functionality in the view rather than the
>> >> DbManager, but it isn't clear to me how we could do that).
>> > I am lost in this remark and have no time to check the code about what
>> > mean. If DbManager stores things about the people view, that would be
>> > strange. I would expect it to manage the family trees and at most be
>> > to
>> > know what the default person of a family tree is....
>> > Benny
>> Oops, I meant DbState. Because the active person is handled in the
>> DbState, one can't have multiple People Views that are independent of
>> another. Of course, if they are independent of one another, then they
>> don't behave the same way. I'm just thinking out loud, wondering if we
>> should rearrange the organization a little.
> Slippery slope ahead :-)
> I don't mind something different, but would want a serious use-case or
> problem before we embark on such a thing. The fact that there is only one
> active object is a central thing at the moment. I see no way on how to
> two different active objects and still have an interface that is logic and