Hmm, I like this approach marius - its more elegant than what we have now.
What would be the overhead of such a system? It seems like this would better fit the lift configuration idioms also. Cheers, Tim On 27 Nov 2009, at 21:52, Marius wrote: > For a default behavior this is a reasonable approach. But from a > framework perspective this is a little limiting. > > In order to be more extensible I think we should allow users to plug > in their own splitting functions (say a LiftRules RulesSeq of > functions) and essentially determine what is suffix and what is not > based on potentially some more complex rules. But that's just me ... > > > Br's, > Marius > > On Nov 27, 10:04 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> By the way Microsoft uses some really long suffixes, e.g., MS Access >> Developer Extension Deployment Wizard files, and Pocket PC emulator. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:34 AM >> To: liftweb@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: [Lift] Beef with LiftRules.explicitlyParsedSuffixes >> >> I'm not overly keen on the whitelist stuff. Someone's going to get cranky >> about it. >> >> I'm open to either adding a whole lot more to the white list or saying that >> everything < n characters (e.g., 5) is a suffix unless it's on a blacklist > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to lift...@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. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to lift...@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.
