On 3/05/2010, at 11:41 AM, Bob Morley wrote: > Bruno Busco wrote: >> >> 2010/5/2 Scott Gray <[email protected]> >> >>> To me extend seems clear but I agree it does conflict with the way that >>> term is used elsewhere in the framework. I don't really like merge >>> though, >>> it doesn't feel like an accurate description of what is happening. Any >>> other ideas anyone? >>> >> >> What about "overrides" ? >> > > When i first read of the feature I felt "override" was appropriate because > the original use case was defined in terms of overriding a view-map entry. > But (without looking at the implementation) I think you could use this as an > extension as well ... for example, you could likely provide a new > view-handler (extension) to go along with an override view-map, and that > newly rendered form could postback to a new request-map (extension). So I > understand why Scott felt "extend" was the right term ...
Yeah, it's very similar how a controller uses the "include" tag and then either overrides included entries (handlers, requests, views) or adds new ones. > I wonder if this is really just external modification to a controller. That's exactly what it is. > Terms that felt kinda close were stuff like application, > external-definition, enhance ... perhaps something in that ballpark could be > used to define exactly what is happening here ? To be honest extend still feels like the best fit to me but what about the term I used in the subject line: inject? Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
