Hi Geoff I am not in any way implying the REQUEST scope is not a good way of going or a bad thing. The points I raised were just think out aloud - stimulate some discussion.
As I stated, in the case of the farCry application this may not be an issue; and as you wrote there is a relationship between container and rule, so they are already coupled if you like. To reiterate, at the time I was reading up on OO so thought I would apply what I had learnt. I am all for leaving the core files as simple as possible. So perhaps for the 2% of the occasions that a rule requires a parameter this is a perfectly good solution. On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:47:27 +1100, Geoff Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Mercer wrote: > > It would need to cater for pages with multiple containers and they may > > or may not share parameters. > > I'm not sure how this would be an issue. Parameters could be stored in > REQUEST.container.ruletypename.parameters giving a unique scope for each > type of rule. > > I guess if multiple containers had the same rule type with different > parameters you'd need to alter the scope before each container > execution... but you'd have to prepare the passed in attributes for the > container tag in the same way. > > > When I pass a parameter in, I may need to pass it in with a different > > argument name. > > Can you elaborate? > > > When I was looking into this I was also reading up on decouple > > objects. I guess in the scope of a farCry application, this may not be > > an issue?? > > What advantages normally associated with decoupling in OO would be > advantageous in this situation? > > Containers and rules only work in the context of each other. Containers > are always executed in the context of a presentation layer template. > The REQUEST scope always exists in the context of an HTTP request. > > I can only see the issue of REQUEST being a public scope that can be > overwritten -- its unprotected. But then in many use cases this is > desirable. And its hard to imagine a documented > REQUEST.container.ruletypename.parameters scope being accidentally > overwritten. > > -- geoff > http://www.daemon.com.au/ > > --- > You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ > --- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
