On 11/2/07, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we might have slightly different ideas, but in general I imagine > everyone is pretty much inline and flexible enough to accept ideas from > others. I'll bang out the spec today and tomorrow and then see where we > are at. I'll put that in a wiki page over at the SmartURLs and build on > the abstraction that Ted started.
That's the trick of writing against an evolving interface spec - your implementation is never done until the spec is finished. In this case, it is a spec against a spec :) Here is the problem I've having - we are writing a book, and since this whole issue seems far from resolution, we've been using the XML configuration throughout the book (it is almost done). What I'd rather have done is use the convention stuff to cut the code size and complexity of the examples down, which, IMO, would have made it easier to learn. Therefore, I'd like to get this resolved asap. I'll try to find some time to review Ted's proposal, but if he is aiming to get other frameworks involved, it might be a while till it is done. In the meantime, do you feel SmartURLs is exactly what you'd want the new plugin (or updated codebehind plugin) to look like, or are there features you would change/cut? If you want it the way it is, we can use its docs as the spec and start the discussion there. Having used SmartURLs for a while now, having read Ted's spec, having spend some time thinking about the topic, I'd be curious to see how you think it should be done, as if starting from scratch. Don > > > Don > > > -bp > > Don > > > -bp ;) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
