I wouldn't put component names in the model.  I hope no one thought I suggested 
it :-)

I think specifying what value the attribute holds when the actual attribute 
value is very broad (password vs regular string) is perfectly acceptable though.

Ramsey

On May 4, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Mark Wardle wrote:

> Isn't there a difference between including additional information about a 
> value (eg isLarge as in Anjo Krank's example) and  putting in a 
> pseudo-component name?
> 
> The former clearly belongs in the model, the latter in the view. 
> 
> I'd tend to use the user info as hints to refine the description of the model 
> so that the view's rule engine can make better defaults when the hints are 
> provided in the model. 
> 
> Doesn't anything else break MVC, even if you use pseudo-component names? 
> Particularly if you have keys named d2w-xxxx in your model!
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Mark Wardle
> Consultant Neurologist, Cardiff, UK
> (Sent from my mobile)
> 
> On Thursday, 3 May 2012 at 18:33, David Holt wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> A few of us have been discussing creating an additional default rule set for 
>> Modern D2W applications based on a new optional key in the user info 
>> dictionary and the existing prototypeName for an attribute.
>> 
>> We were thinking of using a new key such as d2wComponentType = mailto as a 
>> new key that sets the default component to be used for an attribute. We were 
>> thinking that if there was no key the fallback could be to using the 
>> prototypeName from entity modeler, and if neither of those is available to 
>> go with the current rules.
>> 
>> Given that there are now so many little specialized components available in 
>> Wonder for all sorts of different things, we are hoping to avoid continuing 
>> to have to create a bunch of rules such as:
>> 
>> 50 : propertyKey like '*Post' => componentName = "ERD2WEditLargeString" 
>> [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment] because the current rules are not 
>> very specific (the default would just be EditString).
>> 
>> Replacing them with more generic rules such as:
>> 
>> 35 : (smartAttribute.userInfo.d2wComponentType = displaySmallIntNumber => 
>> componentName = "ERD2WDisplaySmallInteger" 
>> [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment]
>> 35 : (smartAttribute.userInfo.d2wComponentType = editSmallIntNumber => 
>> componentName = "ERMD2WEXTEditSmallInteger" 
>> [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment]
>> 
>> 25 : (smartTaskDisplay = 1 and smartAttribute.prototypeName = 'intNumber') 
>> => componentName = "ERMD2WEXTDisplay_intNumber" 
>> [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment]
>> 25 : (smartTaskEdit = 1 and smartAttribute.prototypeName = 'intNumber') => 
>> componentName = "ERMD2WEXTEdit_intNumber" 
>> [com.webobjects.directtoweb.Assignment]
>> 
>> Given that Wonder was created by geniuses I can't imagine that this idea has 
>> been overlooked. What are the drawbacks to the approach that are we 
>> missing?? Or do you think it's a good idea?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
>> Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
>> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mark%40wardle.org
>> 
>> This email sent to [email protected]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected])
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ramseygurley%40gmail.com
> 
> This email sent to [email protected]

 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

This email sent to [email protected]

Reply via email to