Ok, i think a few things have clicked. At work we have started specing out core functionality that we find in our applications.
So if i create the code for it, and seperate it out, i have a folder with all the bits i just need to drop into the relivant cairngorm folders. You guys have really helped me clear things up, i think i was too hung up with trying to encapsulate it into a single file, but i have a pretty clear idea now, so thanks guys. Matt Only took a day :D --- In [email protected], "Renaun Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its tied into application at work. I have been wanted to formalize > the basics and separate it but haven't had the time. It really is a > specific approach and is hard to apply to a robust set of situations. > > Just approach the problem with a high level approach to how you want > to architect multiple applications over time. Then abstract the Login > pattern and make it fit across you development process. > > Other words: > > Make Login act in a certain way across each app. Define the specs so > you are required have x,y,z attributes in the Model. These attributes > might be basic Login related attributes (isLoggedIn, etc...). Then do > the same with the Command object and controller. Now any time you > want to use it in a new application you have a formula to go by. > > This is what Andrew was getting at a couple posts back. > > Renaun > > --- In [email protected], "matthew_brailsford" <matt@> > wrote: > > > > Any chance i could see an example? > > > > Matt > > > > --- In [email protected], "Renaun Erickson" <renaun@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I know what you are thinking when you say .Net webcontrols. It is a > > > pretty good way to thinking about Components when developing > > > applications. But, the big but, if you are going to use Cairngorm it > > > becomes a little different. > > > > > > The difference is encapsulation becomes more of View, Model, and > > > Command pattern then just self contained WebControls. Thats not to > > > say you will have self contained components that have their own > > > Model,View and Command. Its just that the power is in designing your > > > connections between the Model, View and Commands in such a way that > > > you get components that can be plugged into your Application. > > > > > > So I would encourage encapsulation of a Login mechanism that can work > > > for the "way" you do Logins across the applications you create. Just > > > like if someone made a Login WebControl you would still have to > > > conform to their API of the WebControl. You can do the same thing > > > with Flex and Cairngorm model. It might not be all in one Component > > > but can be a defined API across Model, View (ViewHelper really) and > > > Command/Controller. > > > > > > I even went as far to create a strict encapsulation of my Model, > > > ViewHelpers and Commands such that i could put totally different UIs > > > onto of an application at runtime and still. Its a bit specific, but > > > since it was specific to my features set of the application it works > > > nicely. The main point of me mentioning this is Cairngorm and Flex > > > components are powerful, its up to us to find the powerful ways of > > > putting it all together. > > > > > > Renaun > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "matthew_brailsford" <matt@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Many of my dificuilties are down to the fact i'm thinking of things > > > > from a .NET point of view, so i think how can i make a Flex > > > > equivilant of a webcontrol? and what not. > > > > > > > > Web controls are self contained and can hold quite a lot of > > > > functionality whilst maintaining a "plug in" functionality (ie drop > > > > in the dll, and change a few settings in thw web.config) > > > > > > > > Ideally i would have a toolkit of components that can make up the > > > > majority of a systems regular functionality. > > > > > > > > But it looks that if i want to use cairngorm i will have to do what > > > > Andy says create a base platform to build everything on top of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Michael Schmalle" > > > > <teoti.graphix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Not having anything to do with caringorm; > > > > > > > > > > I think some type of login encapsulation would be considered an > > > > application > > > > > component.or a component of an application. > > > > > > > > > > I think you will see some interesting things start to become > > > > encapsulated in > > > > > the future. The word 'Application' is just to broad and could be > > > > thrown at > > > > > anything that didn't define some lowlevel encapsulation. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, component means a design pattern and specific mind > > > > set you > > > > > take when you are defining micro pieces of a system in > realtion to > > > > a macro > > > > > system that could be part of an even larger system. > > > > > > > > > > philosophy then kicks in, what are words anyway, components to me > > > > are more > > > > > 'the act of closing sub systems'. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 7/28/06, matthew_brailsford <matt@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > You've been a big help, and confirmed what i thought was > > > > probabley > > > > > > the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcomponents% > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > "Andrew Trice" > > > > > > > > > > > > <andrew.trice@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You *could*, but it wouldn't really fit with the cairngorm > > > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > I'd recommend just creating common views/commands for login > > > > > > > functionality, and just reusing those per project. You could > > > > > > create a > > > > > > > base project that you use as a template for future projects > > > > that > > > > > > > includes a basic setup of caringorm and any common elements > > > > (such > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > login). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Trice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cynergy Systems, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cynergysystems.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Blog: http://www.cynergysystems.com/blogs/page/andrewtrice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email: andrew.trice@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Office: 866-CYNERGY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <flexcomponents% > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > [mailto:[email protected]<flexcomponents% > > > > 40yahoogroups.com>] > > > > > > On Behalf Of > > > > > > matthew_brailsford > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:44 AM > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <flexcomponents% > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > Subject: [flexcomponents] Re: Cairngorm Components? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you wouldn't be able to encapsulate the business/command > > > > side > > > > > > of > > > > > > > things? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcomponents% > > > > 40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > > > <mailto:flexcomponents%40yahoogroups.com> , "Stefan > Schmalhaus" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <stefan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We create many different solutions, all of which will > have > > > > a > > > > > > log > > > > > > > in, > > > > > > > > > so how would you encapsulate the login functionality so > > > > that > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > could just re-use it per project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand the Cairngorm concept, a "login > > > > component" > > > > > > > > could only be a view (based on a Panel with > username/password > > > > > > text > > > > > > > > fields, a login button etc.) that can be used in a > > > > ViewStack, for > > > > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up, does come down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcomponents/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
