I don't see how you're any worse off if the model can render itself in one way. And if that way is a common standards-compliant way, such as rendering to XML, and you include semantic information, then you can layer any other layers you want on top to do the mapping to the 30 different contexts.
Saying that an object should know how to render itself to some universally recognized format is not the same as saying that that solves all rendering issues. Is there some shortcut to 30 different renderings that I'm missing, or do you have to do the work either way? Chas. Kris Nuttycombe wrote: > If you want to render a model 30 different ways in 30 different > contexts, it kind of sucks though, doesn't it? > > Or what if, shock horror, you don't know how the eventual system is > going to want to render the model (i.e., the person doing the rendering > won't be able to change the model code.) Not too uncommon, I don't think... > > Kris > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Michael <mike.sr > <http://mike.sr>@gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Also I was looking at the sample model source code (User, ProtoUser) > > and saw presentation logic mixed in it. Shouldn't the business and > > model logic be kept separated from the presentation logic or is there > > a Lift strategy it? > > Hmm, a model that can render itself ... That sounds like this crazy > paradigm called object-oriented programming. Some radicals say it has > some advantages over the more procedural style of MVC. > > -- Michael > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
