I'm not so much looking to create a level change, just a low level implementation I suppose. I like the idea of setting up the permissions, and then letting FarCry take care of the rest. In terms of denying access appropriately in display.cfm or what have you. I could then create custom deniedaccess templates per type as required.
I think that's better than creating something custom in the view, and theory wise, views are less portable if you bake business logic into them. You don't agree? You know, make the most of the infrastructure the framework provides us, that's the whole idea of one? Would be interested in your thoughts Geoff. Thanks, Scott Mebberson On Oct 6, 9:59 pm, modius <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 6, 9:14 am, Scott Mebberson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for that. With the new setup, where would the best place to put > > that view controller logic? I'm guessing an overridden method in my > > custom object, which extends farcry.core.packages.types.types. > > > I checked out getDisplay but that doesn't seem to be executed. So I'm > > thinking getView would be the place to put it? > > Why do you want to make such a low level change? You could always > secure the object in the view itself. > > geoffhttp://www.daemon.com.au/ -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry
