Yariv Sadan wrote: > I have had a similar need but I didn't actually prevent these methods > from being exported -- I just gave them names that crackers aren't > likely to guess -- not great for security but good enough for me at > the moment. I think your suggestion makes sense, though, because it's > not always convenient to create new components just for the private > functions. I'll add it to the todo list, unless you want to implement > it yourself. >
mmm, the down side I can see to this approach is that erlyweb could end up looking like Java or c# - over verbose. I'll try and take a look at it tomorrow. No promises of course. First thoughts are that it really only needs a -erlyweb_public() as the internals should be allowed to call what ever it wants. At the moment I'm driving myself mad rewriting a user management module over and over again as I keep changing my mind on how to do it and keep getting destracted by every possible edge case. The last time I tried this I threw my hand up at the registration part and kept working on another part of the application before I ended up shelving it as I had to work on something else. Just starting to get back into it after someone mentioned they were after something similar. Doing this may be a good idea as I'll get a better idea of how the internals of erlyweb are layed out. You'll have to make sure to heavily review the code though. Jeff. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "erlyweb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/erlyweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
