Cedric Dumoulin wrote: > There is no up to date UML diagram. The later one is a not up to date > reverse engineering of the tiles package.
Ok - thanks :-) I had to ask! I think I see where things are happening now. I feel I have a lot better understanding of it. Yesterday was the first time I'd really sat down and tried to make heads or tails of the Tiles source code. > What are you thoughts to make Tiles more "module aware" ? Yes, I think they need to go through that phase with everything else. In fact, I would argue that we won't really know what "modules mean" until we fix everything to work on that basis. Once we have things cleanly seperated, we can look at how they can be further enhanced by maybe "chaining" the lookups like I was suggesting earlier - but that's in another release ;-) The "worst" issue I see in Tiles is that it uses the same key (talking application scope here) to load itself, no matter which module does the loading. With such a scenario, if you have Tiles plugged in to the default module, and also use it in a non-default module, you're going to wind up overwriting your config. > Actually there is one common factory for all modules. It is possible > to propose a solution with one factory for each modules, but users > often want to have a way to define definitions common to all modules, > like the definition defining the site main layout. So we surely need > to propose a way to achieve this (common definitions + module > definitions). > I am open to any suggestion. Well, for now, as little as I like the lack of sharing that would exist (sharing between default/non-default modules), I think probably the best thing we could do is get modules cleanly seperated from each other. Since we're still "finding our feet" with respect to exactly "what modules mean to folks" (ie how are people *really* going to use them?), I think the best route is to get everything cleanly seperated this round - and save any further enhancement (the sharing) for later. Of course, like yourself, I too am open to suggestions :-) > Cedric > > Eddie Bush wrote: > >> I've been looking over Tiles - specifically at how to make it be >> 1.1-compliant wrt modules and not trampling on itself <cringe/>. >> After doing some greps here and there to try to figure things out, it >> occurred to me someone might have a diagram of how things are >> "done". I can read UML fairly well, so that would be ideal. Any UML >> diagrams of Tiles? >> >> Thanks! > -- Eddie Bush -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
