On 1/15/06, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/15/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most MG applications I have been > > exposed to have method names that are aliased to identical "message" > > names in MG apps. > > ...which I think is bad style and will not scale well with application > complexity (but I agree that most MG sample applications seem to do > that). > > I think that having the core framework automatically generate that > "identity" mapping sends a very bad message because it encourages poor > style. In fact, if we're talking about enhancements in that area, I'd > almost prefer to see the framework not accept listener declarations > that use the same name for the function and the message :)
Seems to me that it's the same thing as referring directly to view filenames rather than having a <views/> section and defining them there, then using the name in the event. So that I completely understand the reasoning here, why would one be acceptable and the other not? -Cameron -- Cameron Childress Sumo Consulting Inc http://www.sumoc.com --- cell: 678.637.5072 aim: cameroncf email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
