1 files changed, 0 insertions, 164 deletions
diff --git a/docs/src/design/proposals/ImperativePlugins.md b/docs/src/design/proposals/ImperativePlugins.md
deleted file mode 100644
index 1fbb83b1b..000000000
--- a/docs/src/design/proposals/ImperativePlugins.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,164 +0,0 @@
-# Imperative Plugins
-
-This is a design proposal for handling
-[bundle declarations in JavaScript](
-APIRedesign.md#bundle-declarations-in-javascript).
-
-## Developer Use Cases
-
-Developers will want to use bundles/plugins to (in rough order
-of occurrence):
-
-1. Add new extension instances.
-2. Use existing services
-3. Add new service implementations.
-4. Decorate service implementations.
-5. Decorate extension instances.
-6. Add new types of services.
-7. Add new extension categories.
-
-Notably, bullets 4 and 5 above are currently handled implicitly,
-which has been cited as a source of confusion.
-
-## Interfaces
-
-Two base classes may be used to satisfy these use cases:
-
- * The `CompositeServiceFactory` provides composite service instances.
-   Decorators may be added; the approach used for compositing may be
-   modified; and individual services may be registered to support compositing.
- * The `ExtensionRegistry` allows for the simpler case where what is desired
-   is an array of all instances of some kind of thing within the system.
-
-Note that additional developer use cases may be supported by using the
-more general-purpose `Registry`
-
-```nomnoml
-[Factory.<T, V>
-  |
-  - factoryFn : function (V) : T
-  |
-  + decorate(decoratorFn : function (T, V) : T, options? : RegistrationOptions)
-]-:>[function (V) : T]
-
-[RegistrationOptions |
-  + priority : number or string
-]
-
-[Registry.<T, V>
-  |
-  - compositorFn : function (Array.<T>) : V
-  |
-  + register(item : T, options? : RegistrationOptions)
-  + composite(compositorFn : function (Array.<T>) : V, options? : RegistrationOptions)
-]-:>[Factory.<V, Void>]
-[Factory.<V, Void>]-:>[Factory.<T, V>]
-
-[ExtensionRegistry.<T>]-:>[Registry.<T, Array.<T>>]
-[Registry.<T, Array.<T>>]-:>[Registry.<T, V>]
-
-[CompositeServiceFactory.<T>]-:>[Registry.<T, T>]
-[Registry.<T, T>]-:>[Registry.<T, V>]
-```
-
-## Examples
-
-### 1. Add new extension instances.
-
-```js
-// Instance-style registration
-mct.types.register(new mct.Type({
-    key: "timeline",
-    name: "Timeline",
-    description: "A container for activities ordered in time."
-});
-
-// Factory-style registration
-mct.actions.register(function (domainObject) {
-    return new RemoveAction(domainObject);
-}, { priority: 200 });
-```
-
-### 2. Use existing services
-
-```js
-mct.actions.register(function (domainObject) {
-    var dialogService = mct.ui.dialogServiceFactory();
-    return new PropertiesAction(dialogService, domainObject);
-});
-```
-
-### 3. Add new service implementations
-
-```js
-// Instance-style registration
-mct.persistenceServiceFactory.register(new LocalPersistenceService());
-
-// Factory-style registration
-mct.persistenceServiceFactory.register(function () {
-    var $http = angular.injector(['ng']).get('$http');
-    return new LocalPersistenceService($http);
-});
-```
-
-### 4. Decorate service implementations
-
-```js
-mct.modelServiceFactory.decorate(function (modelService) {
-    return new CachingModelDecorator(modelService);
-}, { priority: 100 });
-```
-
-### 5. Decorate extension instances
-
-```js
-mct.capabilities.decorate(function (capabilities) {
-    return capabilities.map(decorateIfApplicable);
-});
-```
-
-This use case is not well-supported by these API changes. The most
-common case for decoration is capabilities, which are under reconsideration;
-should consider handling decoration of capabilities in a different way.
-
-### 6. Add new types of services
-
-```js
-myModule.myServiceFactory = new mct.CompositeServiceFactory();
-
-// In cases where a custom composition strategy is desired
-myModule.myServiceFactory.composite(function (services) {
-    return new MyServiceCompositor(services);
-});
-```
-
-### 7. Add new extension categories.
-
-```js
-myModule.hamburgers = new mct.ExtensionRegistry();
-```
-
-## Evaluation
-
-### Benefits
-
-* Encourages separation of registration from declaration (individual
-  components are decoupled from the manner in which they are added
-  to the architecture.)
-* Minimizes "magic." Dependencies are acquired, managed, and exposed
-  using plain-old-JavaScript without any dependency injector present
-  to obfuscate what is happening.
-* Offers comparable expressive power to existing APIs; can still
-  extend the behavior of platform components in a variety of ways.
-* Does not force or limit formalisms to use;
-
-### Detriments
-
-* Does not encourage separation of dependency acquisition from
-  declaration; that is, it would be quite natural using this API
-  to acquire references to services during the constructor call
-  to an extension or service. But, passing these in as constructor
-  arguments is preferred (to separate implementation from architecture.)
-* Adds (negligible?) boilerplate relative to declarative syntax.
-* Relies on factories, increasing number of interfaces to be concerned
-  with.
-\ No newline at end of file