Well you summarized pretty well what I feel about this. Essentially the way I see it startup configuration things could exists in other classes/objects but should be accessible through LiftRules.
A little off-topic ... I'm not at all a FactoryMaker-s fan :p Br's, Marius On Feb 26, 5:01 am, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, I'd like to get some opinions on the following. > You may want to readhttp://reviewboard.liftweb.net/r/158/. > > I have on Review Board a patch for some date-and-time parsing and formatting > configuration. I put the settings inside a singleton object called > ConversionRules. > The question is, where do these configurations belong? > Marius feels that LiftRules is the place where people look for all > Lift-related configuration. So that the LiftRules code shouldn't become too > monstrous, it makes sense to put the code in ConversionRules and have a val > in LiftRules pointing to ConversionRules. > My opinion is that LiftRules is, at least for the most part, http- > (lift-webkit) related, and should be that way. I would actually prefer to > ConversionRules in lift-util, but it relies on Factory which is in webkit. > Preferably Factory could be moved to lift-util and ConversionRules with it. > Now I suppose pointing LiftRules to ConversionRules is possible even if the > latter is moved to lift-util, so I guess it really boils down to whether it > would be beneficial for ConversionRules to be presented as "side by side" > with LiftRules, or as a member of it. (If the latter, I suppose > ConversionRules could be made private[liftweb] so there's only one path to > it...) > Thoughts? > Thanks! -- 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.
