Anyone with knowledge about transitions want to step in with some help? I fear that the extra routes added could result in performance- penalties.
~Ronny On 1 Mar, 22:54, Spiralis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
