On 21 Sep 2007, at 21:22, Duane Johnson wrote:
With this architecture, we could take
advantage of inheritance in the OO way (as well as map exceptions to
actions the OO way):
I think this is an interesting point!
With more of my projects taking the REST view on the world, I'll
often have a base controller with common create/update/show/delete
methods, that I then overide if they need modifying.
By taking an approach where actions are classes, this situation might
be improved.
Worth thinking about ... but is quite a step away from the current
"way" that it's not going to be an easy switch.
might the idea maybe be to have:
app/controllers/users/index.rb
class Users::Index < Users::Action
def to_html
render
end
def to_xml
'<xml/>'
end
end
which then renders the template at
app/views/users/index.html.erb
where Users::Action is the base "action" class for users (where you
would put all your methods that all user actions require) and
Users::Action is inherited from Application::Action (where all the
app-level methods are) which is a Merb::Action
I think the GetAction idea is poor and all that sort of logic should
stay in the router code.
I like the ideas of the matching up of the action.rb file and the
template.erb, but I'm not entirly convinced, the directory structures
in /controller and /views would be nicely mirrored.
anyway this is all very theoretical, more things for the _ry-
experimental-playground-branch ;)
Regards
Farms.
_______________________________________________
Merb-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/merb-devel
