Re: [Maypole] The Future of Maypole

From: Sebastian Riedel (sri at oook.de)
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 19:35:01 GMT


Simon Cozens:
> Sebastian Riedel:
> > Currently you start all your Maypole applications with the CRUD example,
> > it is hardwired into the model.
>
> This is utterly, utterly untrue. The CRUD model is there to help you, to
> inherit from, to use if you want. I hardly ever use the methods it provides.
> In the last Maypole application I wrote, I think I only used one of its
> methods (view) and only for one of the classes.
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but shipping default templates
> which do the right thing was probably the biggest mistake I made with Maypole,
> because them people expect the default templates to do the right thing for
> *every* application, and so they start by using the default templates and
> attempting to mould their application around them.
>
> Don't do this. I've lost count of the number of times I've told people not to
> do this, but they still do it.
>
> And now even you, the maintainer of the code, seems to think that this is the
> way people should be writing Maypole applications currently. It's not true.
> Try writing a bunch more Maypole applications first, and you might discover it
> too.
>
> Throw away the default templates, for heaven's sake. They only seem to cause
> confusion. Try writing an application without them. You'll get it done much
> quicker and easier.
>
> Please, please, call your new project something other than Maypole; you've
> already adequately demonstrated that you don't understand how Maypole works,
> so I don't really want my legacy to be redesigned according to your fallacy.
>

Oh thats sooo wrong...

I absolutely agree about the factory templates and CRUD methods, it
totally sucks to build applications around them.

BUT! Reusing sane working code is a very nice thing.

And so i designed the new framework for exactly that purpose, you can
specifically pick the snippets you want and group them to actions.
See my notes about clean separation of model-acions.

You don't have to use blueprints, they are just additional base classes,
it is absolutely painless not to use them. ;)

Oh, and here is a nice name suggestion i got from Mark Thomas:
> How about Windmill? It's a bit like a maypole, only a lot bigger, more
> powerful and spins in a different direction :)

sebastian

_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT