On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Those functions sound -perfect- (or nearly so). Are they going to be
> implemented, or not... (I couldn't figure out that last paragraph.)
There are no plans for them. I just thought that explaining it this
way would make things more understandable. I guess that makes me a
technogeek.
The way the sample works would go against the new database and ACL design,
so it'd need extra work & attention. If you want to store substantial
amounts of data I still recommend a separate database.
> For my HPage scripts... I -really- want to make it so that the hpage owners
> can easily specify some options + such about their entire hpage (like a
> style, or what "sections" they want),
> and so that people can specify some
> options about articles they write (such as, do they want people to be able
> to respond to it... I'm very soon going to add "accounts" to the LHS site,
> and let people have forums based off of arbitrary portions of the site)...
I've done this in the past by adding a inheritable page element to the
'root' of their subsite. You can set global variables there. I usually
keep my globals in a global hash (like context hash in the midhoo sample).
> I've been thinking that I'd put text "flags" in the extra fields for this,
> something like "forum.yes special.no color.red sky.falling" or somesuch.
> This would be the -perfect- answer to my problem. I can simply set the
> "forum" field to "on", and go from there...
The 2.0 extendable fields are going to make this a native feature. But
they don't inherit to object further in the chain. But the inheritable
page elements are a way arounf that.
Bye,
Emile
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
