On 10/5/05, Dave Howorth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you that plugins can be a good way to test new features. > I'm less keen on adding things to the core. In this case I think it > would be better to abstract this functionality out of the core. We > should define the interfaces as standard and provide a configuration > attribute for the provider of the interfaces. Maypole core could default > the implementation (to this module :) in the same way it does now for > the model and view. JMHO. Then again, perhaps that's the kind of thing > you were thinking of.
I think this is pretty much what I was thinking of. Define the interface for this functionality in a way that overrinding (because when you override one, you override the other) is somewhat pleasant if possible. I m not really sure we can get away with a purely abstract interface here. I'm not sure why we would want to either. The whole point of defining an interface is that the implementation does not matter. So we just put some code in there that works. Anyone can override it in the Driver if it does not work for them. > I don't think I've got the time to package it all properly for the next > release. But I'd encourage anybody who likes it to test it and report > back. That would motivate me to do it for next time :) > I'll take a look at it no. I'm to tired to work on my real job but can't sleep ------------------------------------------------------- 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
