Shouldn't RunData be an interface then? This would also have the benefit of
making Turbine more flexible for presentaion other than HTML (WML, etc.) as
different presentaion types could implement specialized RunData's.
../Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:42 PM
To: Turbine
Subject: Re: Turbine Services as plugins
Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 1/17/01 1:04 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The API of these Services is still tightly coupled with the rest
> > of the Turbine framework (it's the whole RunData issue).
>
> There is no "RunData" issue as you can define your own RunData object and
> pass that in. That is why we created a RunDataFactory.
>
Actually, I was not talking about this RunData issue because it's true that
the RunDataFactory can be made configurable and produces subclasses of
RunData
(not currently implemented though).
The issue I refered to was that any service referencing RunData in its
interface
inherited a dependency through this class to ECS, Turbine User and
AccessController,
Turbine Template system, etc... It's definitely an issue when you're talking
componentization.
--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vivendi Universal Networks - Services Manager / Paris
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
