Marcin Domanski aka kabturek wrote: > hey > > On Jun 20, 4:24 pm, Ian Zepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unlike Zend (with uses an Action suffix to designate controller >> actions), Cake doesn't have any such thing and instead uses a blacklist >> of 'private' controller actions (defined in the dispatcher). > We don't ? We've got something that is called convention here ;) > try calling a "__myAction" from the url. >
Perhaps I could have written more clearly. In the Dispatcher the test is called a $privateAction, and is checked on the presence of a '_' in the action. See line 169 in libs/dispatcher.php (cake v1.2) My blacklist comment comes from an older version of Cake, apparently. That particular portion is in 1.1 but doesn't seem to be in 1.2: See line 171 in libs/dispatcher.php (cake v1.1) >> As such, be aware that new methods defined in the controller could >> 'potentially' be called as an action, even if that is not the expected >> behavior. > as long as you _don't_ follow the rules ;) True, but that still doesn't change my statement. Only methods prefixed with a '_' are denied access. A function without a '_' is still a valid action to be called, even if it is not intended to be an action, and EVEN if it scoped as a protected or private member, since PHP5 still doesn't prevent you from calling private methods as public. It just warns you if E_STRICT is on. I do agree, on principle, that non-actions should be written as protected or private methods. I'm was just pointing out the convention differences (from Zend) and potential pitfalls of the cake dispatcher model. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
