Conclusion:Lee's proposal makes a lot of sense. It might, however, mingle with existing VC written by people.
I think I'll ask the users-list for input, and if it's ok with most people to add this breaking change. Personally I'm in favour :) On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Lee Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just think the common case for a viewcomponent is to render the > default view. Therefore that should be default behaviour unless you > explicitly cancelview/renderview("somethingelse"), rather than > implicitly doing those things by calling/not calling bae.render(). > > But maybe this is personal preference. Either way it's not important! > > On 17 Jun 2009, at 19:23, Mike Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lee, > > > >> In my opinon, that is default behaviour that should not be open for > >> modification. > > > > Are you proposing taking away the ability to override the default > > behavior of RenderView("default") ? > > > > I don't see the need to require rendering a view when using a > > ViewComponent since like Hammett mentioned you might want to write > > directly to the stream in lieu of a view. A lieu-view, if you > > please :) > > mike > > > > On Jun 17, 10:05 am, Lee Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I just get a whiff of mouldy OCP when I look at: > >> public virtual void Render() { > >> RenderView("default"); > >> > >> } > >> > >> In my opinon, that is default behaviour that should not be open for > >> modification. But it's not like it's keeping me up at night or > >> anything. >:) > >> > >> 2009/6/17 Ken Egozi <[email protected]> > >> > >>> I do not completely agree with you Lee, regarding the similarity > >>> between > >>> VC's Render() and actions. > >> > >>> Since Render() is a framework-level virtual method, overriding it > >>> in user > >>> code yields calling it's base on the common cases. > >>> On actions it's different, as they are not overriding any predefined > >>> behaviour. > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Lee Henson > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>>> Fair enough. Maybe we could change it next time someone is doing > >>>> some > >>>> breaking changes in that area anyway. Might be a long wait for that > >>>> though.... > >> > >>>> On Jun 16, 7:26 pm, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Lee > >>>>> Henson<[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> but then what kind of > >>>>>> viewcomponent would that be? > >> > >>>>> Could be one without rendering anything at all. Or rendering > >>>>> sections. > >>>>> Or writing directly to the output. > >> > >>>>> I think your thinking makes sense, but the change might have some > >>>>> impact over existing code. > >> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> hammetthttp://hammett.castleproject.org/ > >> > >>> -- > >>> Ken Egozi. > >>> http://www.kenegozi.com/blog > >>> http://www.delver.com > >>> http://www.musicglue.com > >>> http://www.castleproject.org > >>> http://www.gotfriends.co.il > > > > > > > -- Ken Egozi. http://www.kenegozi.com/blog http://www.delver.com http://www.musicglue.com http://www.castleproject.org http://www.gotfriends.co.il --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
