Besides for actual dependencies, Mapper and Record were designed for web apps, which is why they have asHtml and toForm etc. Personally I don't like that design very much. DPP says it's more convenient for the application programmer if it's all in one place, but if it's not too late to make a fundamental change, wouldn't it be possible to achieve that with traits? The least breaking way to do it that makes sense from a library design perspective that comes to mind, is to have classes with the same names with a HtmlMapper trait already mixed in. So net.liftweb.mapper.web.LongKeyedMapper, says, has the same API as the current LongKeyedMapper, but it's achieved by mixing in a trait. Or leave it in the same package and put the core parts of mapper in a mapper-base module / mapper.base package. This will also have the advantage of allowing other objects to provide toForm/asHtml etc., by having HtmlMapper extend a base trait.
------------------------------------- Timothy Perrett<timo...@getintheloop.eu> wrote: Tim, I couldnt agree more! However, Record also has a dep on lift-webkit from S.funcMap which we really need to refactor / remove. Likewise for asJS methods which pull a dep on lift-webkit. Cheers, Tim On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:39, Tim Nelson wrote: > Aren't most of the dependencies that Record relies on coming from > the RDBMS code? > > Would it make sense to move that code to a separate module (lift- > record-rdbms)? > > I don't like all of the dependencies that Record relies on because > I'm not using the RDBMS code, I'm using a custom Record back end. > > It would be nice to have Record a completely separate module, but I > think at least moving the RDBMS and therefore the Mapper dependency > to a separate module would be very easy and remove most of the > dependencies. > > Tim > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Timothy Perrett <timo...@getintheloop.eu > > wrote: > > This is my point - record should be more abstract... we dont want it > depending on all that stuff.... its pointless. > > @dpp or @marius... what are your thoughts? > > Cheers, Tim > > On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:44, Indrajit Raychaudhuri wrote: > > > > > lift-record depends on lift-mapper and since lift-mapper is heavily > > dependent on lift-webkit, lift-record ends up depending on lift- > webkit > > as well. > > > > So at the moment, lift-record would end up depending on lift-webkit > > (and > > lift-widget!) indirectly even if you remove reference to lift-webkit > > (superfluous) from lift-record pom. > > > > lift-widget part is simpler (just one reference in MappedInt, intend > > to > > take up later if somebody else don't beat me) but lift-webkit looks > > lot > > of work. > > > > Cheers, Indrajit > > > > > > On 29/09/09 3:12 PM, Timothy Perrett wrote: > >> > >> Guys, > >> > >> I just noticed that lift-record depends on lift-webket because of > >> some > >> calls to S... IMHO, we need to remove this because thats simply too > >> tight a coupling between the webkit and an abstract persistence > >> interface like record. > >> > >> For instance, one record abstraction I wrote isn't even used in > >> webapps... > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Cheers, Tim > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
