The routing data is on the list too, but I don't like the restriction for only one poco for input: too much formality imho.
But if someone wants to follow this model, it'll be possible using the Components.DataBinder Cheers, Henry Conceição On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 3:11 AM, John Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > We should also support routing data. > > Also, wouldn't it be simpler to have one model(POCO) in only? And > maybe support interfaces too? > > eg: > public void ViewUser(IUserId id) > > Public void UpdateUser(User userData) > > interface IUserId{ > Guid Id {get; set;} > } > > class User : IUserId{ > Guid Id {get; set;} > string Name {get; set;} > } > > Cheers > John > > On Nov 18, 8:47 am, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On my next step, I would like to approach the action data binding. >> >> I see three distinct types of bindable parameters that we should support: >> >> - simple form/querystring databinding >> - complex form/querystring databinding (relaying on >> Castle.Components.DataBinder) >> - http context base object (context, request, response, session) >> >> I'm not sure if we should support action overloading. Things can be >> much simpler without it. >> >> Any thoughts regarding this? >> >> 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]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- 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.
