On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:32:54 -0800 (PST), Peter Speltz wrote
> --- Simon Flack <sf at flacks.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > It just seems a little odd to me to alter the relationship between the
> > model and the view by setting a template variable.
>
> Well, when a gets relationship is dysfunctional sometimes you simply
> have to spice it up a little. :) IMO, its changing it any but only
> making it better. Relationship is still -- View::Base is a good
> friend to Model and sets some default template_args for it. Models
> can override them.
>
> >It feels more like a
> > hack than a proper solution. I don't mean any offence, we may have to go
> > with hacks for the short-term to preserve compatability. but I'd like to
> > know what the ideal solution would be first.
>
> No offense. Its a hack. If i could code the ideal solution on my
> own I would have submitted a patch already and not wasted my or
> others's time talking about it :) Is there any chance of knowing the
> ideal solution soon , so we can go ahead and start using it ?
I think I'm sold on your idea of setting template_args. It's simple and fairly
intuitive and it requires the least amount of work. For more advanced
requirements you can still use a custom model/view.
So, unless anyone objects, in 2.05 you'll be able to set
$r->template_args->{classmetadata}{foo} and the view class won't attempt to
set its own classmetadata.foo.
It'll also makes it easier to extend classmetadata with properties of your own.
--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