On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 10:25 -0700, Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> What are the main differences between this and the earlier implementations?
>
Actually there is no big difference besides the naming.
The earlier implementation was only xhtml focused, now I just clarified
that with the new naming convention.
I still need to clean up some code that got redundant (multiple format
in a contract definition) with the move but I hope that is now the final
name for the xhtml contracts and the user will not note the changes
under the hood.
The naming convention for new formats is now ...viewHelper.{format}
This way it will become easy to implement new format without the need to
modify the viewHelper.
In the future we will use as well another naming convention for the dir
structure in projects. Right now all project contracts have to be
in .../templates/{contract}.ft but this will change
to .../templates/{format}/{contract}.ft
Sorry for answering so late but I just started in a new company and
still have to install/setup my workspace.
salu2
> Thanks,
> Diwaker
>
> On 5/3/05, Thorsten Scherler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello devs,
> >
> > I am implementing another format for the viewHelper. That forced me to
> > rename the current implementation to viewHelper.xhtml.
> >
> > *You have to* rename the forrest.properties of your projects that are
> > using the view/viewHelper!!!
> >
> > BTW we need to discuss the contracts that we have right now. For now it
> > is possible to implement more then one format within a contract, but IMO
> > that do not make much sense. I recommend that a contract is implementing
> > just 1 format.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > salu2
> > --
> > thorsten
> >
> > "Together we stand, divided we fall!"
> > Hey you (Pink Floyd)
> >
> >
>
>
--
thorsten
"Together we stand, divided we fall!"
Hey you (Pink Floyd)
