On 8/20/10 5:27 AM, Haselwanter Edmund wrote

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,

Reply via email to