That would cover my use case, certainly. So far I am using each of my
elements exactly once.
Maybe there should be a warning logged if there's more than one match
for a given class, just in case people include the same element in
several places. I wouldn't mind having to use an ID if there was
ambiguity about which element I meant.
This is probably what you have in mind already, but it should use the
first element declared with the destination class in the current
subsite, *then* search other subsites. I bet most of the time if you use
the same element in multiple places you will want to refer to the local
one. Plus that makes the system keep working as it does today if you're
referring to local instances of elements.
What are some examples of places where you'd want to use an element in
multiple subsites? About the only case I can think of is if you have an
element that should be accessible only by two distinct sets of users (so
you'd put it in two different authentication-required subsites.) In that
case searching the local subsite first would definitely be the desired
behavior.
One other stray thought: To keep the benefit of referring to the class
object while still allowing you to disambiguate, maybe there should be a
way to specify which subsite you want without knowing the ID of the
element. E.g., if your destId points to a subsite name rather than an
element, and there's a destClass, RIFE tries to search for that class in
the given subsite. Or maybe a separate destSite attribute would be
better so as not to overload destId.
-Steve
Geert Bevin wrote:
Hi Steven,
at the moment this is intended behavior by lack of a better solution.
The problem is that for RIFE there is no way of knowing which element
ID you mean when you point it to a destClass. The element can be
included many times, with different IDs and in different sub-sites.
A solution that I now think of is that instead of just assuming that
the element resides in the same sub-site, that logic could be changed
to selecting the first element declared with the destination class as
its implementation. What do you think? Would that work? It seems that
it would cover most of the things that people expect when using it.
Best regards,
Geert
_______________________________________________
Rife-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
