I have read that article and understand the implications.  I also understand 
that I will have to be cautious with security, etal.   I will be 
concentrating my efforts to move everything that is possible into compiled 
code, but that will not be pratical for all instances.  A solution totally 
comprised of extension objects will not give me the ability to customise. 
Under that paradigm, it would take a developer to change any aspect of the 
application and there are a vast number of custom features on a per client 
basis.  I appreciate the input and am open to other suggestions, but this 
does not get me any closer to meeting the requirements for the project.

"Oleg Tkachenko [MVP]" wrote:

> STurquette wrote:
> 
> > Basically I have an application that I am designing.  I need to be able to 
> > give my users the ability to customize some of the functionality by editing 
> > or changing scripted areas and provide base functionality in compiled code 
> > that cannot be changed.
> > 
> > In the release that I am designing I have the following goals, 
> > •	I want to use C# to design the compiled piece
> > •	I want to use xslt to house the scripted code which would allow the script 
> > to be written in any of the .NET languages.  I will be focusing on jscript or 
> > javascript but will also be able to use C#, VB.Net and others if I want to in 
> > the scripting blocks.
> > •	I want to expose the compiled extension objects to the script blocks so 
> > that compiled base functionality could be used in the script blocks
> 
> Script blocks have lots of limitations, security and performance 
> implications. Take a look at 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpguide/html/cpconXSLTStylesheetScriptingUsingMsxslscript.asp
> I'd better go for extension objects only. Scripts are only for simple 
> things, extension objects - for everything.
> 
> -- 
> Oleg Tkachenko [XML MVP]
> http://blog.tkachenko.com
>