Nico Klasens schreef:
Considering these differences it might be wise to drop the usage of
"mixin type" as name.
I agree. When I read this scetion my intial idea was not that this was a
"mixin' type, but a "mimic' type:
You map an objecttype (or functionset, or whatever) to make it appear as
something else (namely a pre-defined objecttype, funtionset, etc)
I think it would not be too hard to make a few adjustements that would
make 'mimicing' types possible. (The following is maybe a bit too
detailed - it is just brainstorming though.)
I.e. a builder main tag could include a "mimic' attribute that allows
you to map the builder to a mimic type.
I.e:
<builder name="mymail" extends="object" mimic="email">...
An alternate approach is to add a extra mimic tag, whcih could, besides
the mimictype name, supply a class that allows one to supply information
that is not stored in the mimicing builder (possibly including functions
specific to a amimictype). It also allows a builder to mimic more than
one type, if appropriate.
I,e,:
<mimic id="email" class="org.mmbase.component.email.MyEmailMimicType" />.
Fields can be extended in the same way:
<field name="to" mimics="email:to_address">...
Or with a mimic-tag specific for field (with a optional class that
allows for conversion of values for one type to another, if needed).
(note: normally we use the name tag in the db tag to assign a name, but
that is a bit silly - maybe we should change that?)
Gomez
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
