Kees Jongenburger wrote:
> On 5/12/06, Henk Hangyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi Kees,
> >
> >> It never felt right to extend Builder to add functionality.
> >
> >Why not? It is great fun and very valuable both from a theoretical as
> >well as a practical point of view.
> Can you elaborate on that?
>
> For me it's a lot of work to accomplish a very small gain. functions
> have been reworked every mmbase relase. And even OO wise I don't know
> if it's theoretically a good thing since moost functions apply on a
> field.
In 1.8 it is quite good though, I think. It is quite easy to plug in
or modify functionality. Using only the builder XML you can heavily
modifiy the behaviour of fields, and add functions to the node. That can
be done with precooked functionality, but you can always specify
explicit classes too, which are then quite straigh-forward and
reuseable. We must perhaps document this a bit better still.
> Other functions like the ones in MMImage Are even worse IMHO
> since they perform operations on different node types (images and
> caches). and even have different implementations,
> MyImageConverter.convert(image,template);
> v.s
> image.getFunctionValue("cache",template);
I agree that it is questionable that all this is triggered from an
MMObjectBuilder extension. It could now relatively easily be moved to
function-implementations and/or field-processors. It does not seem worth
the hassle at this point though. Perhaps it would be worth it if we want
to split of all imaging functionality to a seperate jar or so.
Michiel
--
Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil'
Peperbus 111 MediaPark H'sum [] ()
+31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
