On 8/20/10 5:27 AM, Haselwanter Edmund wrote
Edmund,
I did see this, but I don't think it exactly addresses my issue. I want to
render a page where half of my content is provided by a Radiant user, and the
other half is provided by me (the developer).
Then I don't understand your use case. Either use radius tags to render your
data, or use share layouts to populate your data.
share-layouts basically allows us to plug in the holes in the Radiant layout
from a Rails controller/view pair, but then all of the content must come from
the Rails app., correct?
hm. radiant is the rails app.
I misspoke here (it was late), what I meant was to distinguish between
the two render paths available to me in the Rails app. - either
SiteController - driven [Radiant - managed rendering] or standard Rails
rendering. As far as I can tell, these two render paths are effectively
mutually exclusively across the entire page. Either my entire page is
rendered by Radius tags, or my entire page is rendered by share layouts.
Neither of these is sufficient if I need to render both content
contained inside of Radiant and content that comes from a standard Rails
request _in the same page_.
Specifically, in my applicaiton - in one page, I have a piece of content
that is rendered at the top of the page, and then a form that needs to
be rendered at the bottom. Truth be told, I could use the forms
extension to render the form, but having to hand-code all of the field
attributes was distasteful to me, when I could use a standard Rails form
builder based view, do it in Haml, and have the form view be more
readable, etc. What I probably _should_ do is change the forms
extension to be able to take advantage of the form builder stuff in
Rails, so that writing out a Radius form isn't as tedious as it is now.
Having said all of that, I'm pretty happy with what I have so far as it
gives me what I think is more flexibility.
I looked at the page-part extension as well, but it didn't seem to
address my issue, since one of my parts would be one of these forms.
I will keep thinking about it. It's certainly possible that there is a
more elegant solution.
Many thanks,
W
