On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:38:15 -0000, David R. Baird wrote
> My POV is that Maypole is still young, and stability of the
> interface, although nice, is still secondary to making things (even)
> better. Release early and release often is the mantra, but that
> comes with the responsibility of early adopters putting up with a
> degree of churn in the API. Flagged by increments in the version
> string - maybe we need a convention on how Maypole versions are
> incremented?
I think it's possible to minimise the impace of the API change. It's not all
that different from how things work at the moment. Your models and views are
passed a request object at the moment. It just happens to have controller
methods and properties bolted on. As long as you don't use those methods from
your model actions, you should be fairly safe. I'd expect this change to be
localised to your driver/controller class.
> I'd definitely like to see the separation of controller and request.
I hope you won't have to wait too long :)
--simonflk
_______________________________________________
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