Hi! On 01/25/2008 12:34 PM Gaetano Giunta wrote: > As far as I am concerned, the C+V should be flexibile enough (or > abstracted/away enough) to allow building with extreme ease servers that > support different calling-conventions (eg rest,soap,xmlrpc,plain old > html etc) for the same functions.
> This means: > - allowing the input abstraction layer to decide upon current > module/action to be executed based on any combination of http headers, > get params and request payload I think this is the thing we need to abstract: The input abstraction should abstract from the GET/POST/... data, headers and things, so that the router can decide which controller to use. Or did I get you wrong? > - allowing the view to be used for rendering output to be tied either to > the action in execution or not (eg tied to the module or to something esle) I don't really get this one. Could you elaborate some more here, please? > - allowing to have actions specified as either one class (php file) per > action or as one method per action This could depend on the router implementation, I think. However, I personally would favor to have it defined once, for consistency. > sorry if this is too low-level for this discussion, I have been > wrestling with symfony for 3 days right now, and while it looks very > nice and friendly in the beginning, its turning out to be way harder > than expected to extend its controller Your input is really valuable. It would be great if you could invest some more time to discuss the requirements and design of this stuff with us here. :) Best regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
