Bill said: > I just didn't feel that the "approved" tools (if any) should be > constructed until they are really used for a specific template and the > template designer should know them by a "common" name, not a class name. > "Lazy" construction of the tools just allows for improved performance > for templates that don't use any/all of them.
"lazy" for the system maybe, but more work for the designer. also, it'll perform worse or no better for tools that are frequently used. if your tools are well-designed, the performance hit of pre-populating the context should be quite negligible. so given that pre-population is better MVC, i much prefer to avoid encouraging in-template tool loading. i think it _can_ be a useful development tool, but i don't think it ought to be a common practice. [snip] > There so much out here, that this may exist already and I just haven't > come upon it yet. Having tools (and tools for tools) be flexible for the > many various projects that exist in the world is a great challenge. > Every one doesn't wear the same size or style of shoe and some go > barefoot! heh. i'm barefoot right now. i've never been a big fan of shoes. :-) still, while flexibility does serve variety well, the fact is that some methods and patterns are better than others. as such, i value extensibility above prepackaged flexibility. leave room for people do unorthodox things if they really want, but don't encourage it or do it for them. Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
