Hi,

Kore Nordmann wrote:
> I just copied the document from google docs, only applying some
> reformatting. So that the contents will definitely need some
> refactoring...
> 
> On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 14:22 +0200, James Pic wrote:
> > Kore Nordmann wrote:
> > > - Controllers only return some view structure, which may contain semantic
> > >   information about the data to display or information about the template 
> > > to
> > >   use.
> > 
> > Did you mean: may *not*?
> 
> No. The key point of dispatching the view structures in the view handler
> are the smatics of information returned by the controller. For example
> the controller may return a fooUserStructure, so that a special template
> could be used to display the user information.

Mind to show a little example please?

> > > - (HTTP) redirects are also "just" some view structure, which is returned 
> > > by
> > >   the controller, and the view actually performs the proper action 
> > > depending
> > >   on the context. 
> > 
> > Do we want the controller to set HTTP headers in the output object?
> > I'd say that the view-manager should take care of figuring the response 
> > code by
> > itself.
> 
> No, no protocol specific stuff in controller at all. The key point of
> this is, that the controller returns "something", and the view decides
> to do a redirect because of the provided view structure. The same for
> error codes, or whatever.

Ok, i understand your point. See my suggestion on the reply to Derick.

> > > Request Parser
> > > ==============
> > > The "user" object should be accessible in the view as well, to allow for
> > > anonymous/authenticated.
> > 
> > Do we want a user interface or something like that? (to make the code 
> > portable
> > and testable)
> 
> I don't think we should specify up to this point. It entirely depends on
> the view structures you pass back from the controller. Like the first
> example shows there may be big differences in what users might want
> there. And it is trivial to provide some application dependant user view
> structure.
> 
> Also we said, that we want to include the (unauthorized, unvalidated) in
> the input strucutre, defined by the request parser and pass this
> structure also to the view - so the information will probably be
> available somehow...

I agree that we need to ettofate the input structure, mind to add/comment stuff 
to/in the
list that i sent as a reply to Derick please?

Thanks for your enlighting feedback!
Regards, James.
-- 
Components mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components

Reply via email to