John McNally wrote:
> Another
> implementation I have in mind, is a property-type file which explicitely
> lists the 3 objects associated with the key.
IMO an XML file would express such a mapping in a much cleaner way.
> Some people (at least at
> CollabNet) prefer this implementation. I personally think the current
> scheme is easier to develop with, but as you move into production it
> could be good to switch to the property file implementation as it
> provides a central location for tracking and turning on new templates.
The current scheme of looking up modules is quite natural, because you
need to structure and organize your classes anyway. The only
disadavantage
is the multitude of packages in a project, and rather long names of
those.
Defining the mapping in a file would help in flattening the project
structure
a bit. (plus I agree with you about central management being beneficial)
> But the main point being (as I don't plan to implement this other
> method, right now,) is that it could be done simply by subclassing the
> current TurbineTemplateService implementation and overriding one method.
Yes. This is the nice thing about services framework :-)
Rafal
--
Rafal Krzewski
Senior Internet Developer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
