On 9/30/05, Dave Howorth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Speltz wrote: > > >>>To me it makes sense to have it in Maypole.pm because it is what > >>>defines an "action". > > > > By this I mean Maypole has a precise definition of an "action" -- an > > exported sub or a sub that passes the is_public test. Since maypole > > defines this, it seems it would also define the helper method to > > determine what the actions are. > > Ah, now I understand what you mean. Thanks for persisting. In that case, > I'd think it ought to be a method on Maypole::Model::Base. But since > there's no built-in way to call class methods on the model from a > template, and we don't have a plugin interface for the model ...
This seems like something that needs to be fixed rather than working around it. Not being able to access stuff from templates is rather unhelpful. > > But it really does not make a difference whether it is a plugin or > > what i guess. What's one more plugin in a list of 10 :) It looks like something that would be missing from the core maypole framework rather than something added on. (IMHO) > ... and since the other suggestions were for a plugin ... I think I feel > one coming on. model_actions seems like a good name for the method, so > you won't need to change that. > > (As an aside, this is a good example of something that makes Maypole > apps less well-structured. This is model functionality, IMHO, but it all > ends up loaded into the request/controller because the only tool we have > is a hammer). Yes - this appears to be a problem that we need to resolve - I don't want to be applying kludges when we could be making things better. cheers, A. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Maypole-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-users
