What's the deal with haters hatin' on our old friend the base class? Maybe
you can implement base class functions like getAction using a dispatch level
plugin, but how is that better than a simple abstract class to base your
controllers around? My actual controllers are 80% method free, it's all done
in the base class, I only ever have to override on occasion - it seems like
a solid solution to me, why is it considered less than ideal?
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Colin Guthrie <gm...@colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Taha Bayrak at 22/12/09 06:23 did gyre and gimble:
> > What is the best practice for placing the base controller classes?
>
> Ideally, don't use them at all. You can use action helpers to group up
> common tasks into one handy call...
>
> You can also have plugins work at the dispatch loop level which can be
> handy.
>
> Sometimes it just feels nicer to have a base class tho'.
>
> > a. Placing them in the same directory as the other controllers - the
> > ones that extends from the base class -? If so, is there a easy way to
> > prevent the base class getting into the dispatch loop?
>
> Just prefix the class with the word "abstract"... i.e. abstract class
> MyBase_Controller { .... }
>
> That way the class cannot be instantiated on it's own. It may be a nasty
> crash tho'.
>
> Personally I'd put it in a subdirectory of the Controller folder to make
> sure.
>
> Col.
>
> --
>
> Colin Guthrie
> gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie
> http://colin.guthr.ie/
>
> Day Job:
> Tribalogic Limited [http://www.tribalogic.net/]
> Open Source:
> Mandriva Linux Contributor [http://www.mandriva.com/]
> PulseAudio Hacker [http://www.pulseaudio.org/]
> Trac Hacker [http://trac.edgewall.org/]
>
>
