Hi,
I long time ago I posted a question about weird routing tables with
hobo:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03719.html
I did find out why. It seems that repeated transition names (same
name) creates multiple copies of the same route into the routes table.
There's two approaches to this (at least :). The first is to check the
routes before adding a new route to avoid duplicates. Another approach
is to extend the hobo transition statement.
I'd vote for the latter.
For instance, I have an application where I have some transitions that
have the same name:
<pre>
transition :propose_artist_contract, { :draft
=> :Cdraft_Aproposed }, :available_to => "User"
transition :propose_artist_contract, { :Cproposed_Adraft
=> :proposed }, :available_to => "User"
transition :propose_artist_contract, { :Cverified_Adraft
=> :Cverified_Aproposed }, :available_to => "User"
</pre>
For me it would be better if I could do something like this:
<pre>
transition :propose_artist_contract, { :draft
=> :Cdraft_Aproposed,
:Cproposed_Adraft
=> :proposed,
:Cverified_Adraft
=> :Cverified_Aproposed }, :available_to => "User"
</pre>
But, looking at the API, the transition method only supports one
single from => to state-pair, or an array for the from-state.
I hereby vote for allowing an array of from=>to states to be passed
for a single transition name, like the sample above show.
Any suggestions? Or votes?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo
Users" 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/hobousers?hl=en.
