+1 in favour
On Jun 18, 7:12 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/bloghttp://www.delver.comhttp://www.musicglue.comhttp://www.castleproject.orghttp://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
