It shouldn't change the user API for TG2 users at all. The main change will be to the implementation, we'll have a base class for decorator style controllers, (perhaps DecoratorController controller) and inherit from that to create the standard TurboGearsController which does object dispatch too.
But for the standard TG user they will still just import TurboGearsController and use that as the base class for the root controller in their tree. For people using pylons, they will be able to import DecoratorController, and use expose(), return a dictionary and otherwise write controllers like TG, but use Routes (or whatever other mechanism) to do dispatch to those controllers. --Mark On 10/11/07, Christopher Arndt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark Ramm schrieb: > > I'd like to break up the link between "turbogears decorator style" > > controllers from Object Dispatch style controllers. The default TG2 > > controller will do both, but It sounds like Pylons folks would like to > > use decorator style (returning a dictionary, and multiple expose based > > content negotiation) with Routes. > > > > Anybody got any objections? Or even better, anybody wanna help? > > Could you elaborate on that a little more? Maybe with some examples of > how the code would look like with the proposed chenages? > > > Chris > > > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
