With regard to INCLUDE objects and parameters:
1. Users get annoyed with Include objects because typically they cannot edit the content on these pages without going through a developer.
2. Parameterising things makes things slightly easier, but an alternative already exists.
Include objects that require parameters sound a lot like custom publishing rules.. only publishing rules are more flexible.
Is there any reason why publishing rules *don't* fit the bill?
-- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/
Ian Welsh wrote:
I like this idea (parameters) a lot.
Our includedObj directory is not too big yet so we are not experiencing the
problems in the first part of your email, but being able to add or pass a
parameter to an includedObj page would be great.
Regards Ian
-----Original Message----- Sent: 18 February 2004 08:25 Subject: [farcry-dev] Re: PROPOSAL: includedObj
PROPOSALS: If not, I will begin the planning work for this with a view to implementing it for a future release.
Oh - and you always remember something after you have posted it.......
I am also considering the value of adding a "parameters" box in the Include Object PLP (so you can pass some additional hardcoded URL parameters to the include object).
If I do go down this path, I may add some metadata into the embedded comment can indicate what parameters it accepts - just maybe though.
Gary Menzel Web Development Manager
--- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
