On 10/9/07, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of anything that could be gained by
> passing the request to the resolver.
I forgot! After [4237] went in, people can specify a custom resolver
based on the request anyway. So once resolvers are a little more
On 10/9/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can cheat a little bit here because I've thought about this a lot in
> the past. So this is slightly more than just a shot from the hip,
> despite the quick response time. This is all very hypothetical, because
> I've only ever done
Hey Marty,
I can cheat a little bit here because I've thought about this a lot in
the past. So this is slightly more than just a shot from the hip,
despite the quick response time. This is all very hypothetical, because
I've only ever done thought experiments here.
You'll want to get feedback
Apologies in advance: This is a long email, and I may tend to ramble.
Try to bear with me, please.
In testing out a framework for creating Netvibes widgets (just to see
if I could), I had what I thought to be a great idea for resolving
URLs to methods on a Widget instance. Essentially, each view
2007/10/7, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The Resource class is quite as independent from everything as we would
> have liked. I say "we" here because towards the end of the SoC period,
> Andreas and I spent quite a long time trying to loosen a few of the
> couplings between output
Hi,
I'm not sure if it's just that I'm being impatient, but in a ticket
(#4036), after some discussion, some candidate patches I've upload a
patch that can be commited to subversion, and I've changed its triage
stage to "Ready for checkin". Is it enough, or do I have to do
anything else for
