Statically typed is actually very appealing to me. Makes my views refactoring safe.
I agree with you on principle on the limitation of a single typed model, but that's where I think MR has an advantage over other models: ViewComponents could have their own typed models. 2010/11/17 Henry Conceição <[email protected]> > Hi folks, > > I'm playing the view, viewengine and would like some input about > passing values to the view. > > On mr2 we're used to use the propertybag to store the values for the > view. I do like more this approach than have a view constrained by a > typed ViewModel. > > So, my ideia now is to send a single object to the view. No contract > to follow. It can be the (new) dynamic PropertyBag or a poco. > > Do you think that this is enough? Or we really should have the ability > of create views statically typed? > > > Cheers, > Henry Conceição > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<castle-project-devel%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
