headers
Manuel Holtgrewe | 1 May 2002 13:16
Picon

Template

Hi all

As far as I can see, each time you use templates, you have to create a
new $Template class and each time you apply a template, a new rendere
is instanciated. That costs resources every time you make output.

What about having one global instance for each renderer that is created
the first time it is used ? Or one global Template class for that ?

Or don't I see a fundamental disadvantage for this way of doing it (could
be that, too of course)

bye

 Manuel                          mailto:grin@...

--
"How should I know if it works?
 That is what beta testers are for."
  -- Linus Torwald
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Manuel Holtgrewe | 1 May 2002 13:26
Picon

Widgets

Hi Jason,

The Widget TextEntry does not do any validation with parameters. Am I
to implement that in the other widget and add validation to TextEntry?
And should there be any data encapsulation for the parameters.

hmmm. That could be done quite comfortably by creating a function
Widget::setParameter($name /*string*/, $value /*mixed*/); That first
checks if there is a property called $name and then check if $value is
a valid value. The data for validation could be from a private array
$this->validation_data that is set by the constructor of derived
$this->classes...

MfG

 Manuel                          mailto:grin@...

--
"How should I know if it works?
 That is what beta testers are for."
  -- Linus Torwald
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Manuel Holtgrewe | 1 May 2002 13:28
Picon

Re: Oh my god

Hi Alex,

AB> David, you added yourself to the matrix!

So there is no real maintainer for the matrix? I thought you wanted to
manage that, Alex... So I'll do that, too, in future

Bye

 Manuel                          mailto:grin@...

--
"How should I know if it works?
 That is what beta testers are for."
  -- Linus Torwald
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Ulevitch | 1 May 2002 13:53

Re: Oh my god

Hello Manuel,

Wednesday, May 1, 2002, 6:28:36 AM, you wrote:

MH> Hi Alex,

AB>> David, you added yourself to the matrix!

MH> So there is no real maintainer for the matrix? I thought you wanted to
MH> manage that, Alex... So I'll do that, too, in future

It's a MUTINY!

I don't know if I was suppose to add myself.  I guess my thoughts
were that if an RFC was unclaimed and no one else had mentioned
wanting to take it then it was "fair game" in a sense.

I would assume (and hope) nobody else's RFC's would be touched by
anyone besides that RFC implementor and Alex.

And anyways...I was mostly just using the matrix as a guinea pig so I
could learn CVS for when I updated all the RFC 55 changes. [now done,
anyone test them yet?]

Alex, thoughts?

--

-- 
Best regards,
 David                            mailto:davidu@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Andreas Aderhold | 1 May 2002 13:27

Re: Template

Hi Manuel,

aboslutely and this will be part of the Widget superclass :) So your 
"modules" generating presentation will use (i guess a static) instance of 
the tpl engine provided by the parent Widget class.

Andi

--On 01 May 2002 13:16 +0200 Manuel Holtgrewe <grin@...> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> As far as I can see, each time you use templates, you have to create a
> new $Template class and each time you apply a template, a new rendere
> is instanciated. That costs resources every time you make output.
>
> What about having one global instance for each renderer that is created
> the first time it is used ? Or one global Template class for that ?
>
> Or don't I see a fundamental disadvantage for this way of doing it (could
> be that, too of course)
>
> bye
>
>  Manuel                          mailto:grin@...
>
> --
> "How should I know if it works?
>  That is what beta testers are for."
>   -- Linus Torwald
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Manuel Holtgrewe | 1 May 2002 14:49
Picon

Re: naming Widgets

Hi

Another thing: Which names would I give the widgets? Those from the
listing somewhere in docs/Frame/Notes or the names from the RFC?

Bye

 Manuel                          mailto:grin@...

--
"How should I know if it works?
 That is what beta testers are for."
  -- Linus Torwald
Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Alex Black | 1 May 2002 18:49

Re: Template

> As far as I can see, each time you use templates, you have to create a
> new $Template class and each time you apply a template, a new rendere
> is instanciated. That costs resources every time you make output.
> 
> What about having one global instance for each renderer that is created
> the first time it is used ? Or one global Template class for that ?
> 
> Or don't I see a fundamental disadvantage for this way of doing it (could
> be that, too of course)

That will be changed by the base class, which will return the same instance
of $Template each time.

if you're bothered about renderers we could modify Template to store
renderers in an array by type :)

_a
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alex Black | 1 May 2002 18:50

Re: Widgets

Validation on a per-widget basis is an interesting subject.

However, I think it's too complex - i.e. there is such a wide open field of
data that could potentially be valid in a textentry that we're better off
doing validation "up stream" in form and Entity.

Opinions?

_a

> hmmm. That could be done quite comfortably by creating a function
> Widget::setParameter($name /*string*/, $value /*mixed*/); That first
> checks if there is a property called $name and then check if $value is
> a valid value. The data for validation could be from a private array
> $this->validation_data that is set by the constructor of derived
> $this->classes...
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Alex Black | 1 May 2002 18:51

Re: Oh my god

> So there is no real maintainer for the matrix? I thought you wanted to
> manage that, Alex... So I'll do that, too, in future

I am the maintainer, but someone adding themselves once in a while ain't bad
:)

-a
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alex Black | 1 May 2002 18:52

Re: Oh my god

> I don't know if I was suppose to add myself.  I guess my thoughts
> were that if an RFC was unclaimed and no one else had mentioned
> wanting to take it then it was "fair game" in a sense.

Exactly.

> I would assume (and hope) nobody else's RFC's would be touched by
> anyone besides that RFC implementor and Alex.

yes, those are a different story. I have _NO_ trouble modifying RFCs at
someone's suggestion but I think that should go through proper discussion
and the original author should make the changes.

> And anyways...I was mostly just using the matrix as a guinea pig so I
> could learn CVS for when I updated all the RFC 55 changes. [now done,
> anyone test them yet?]
> 
> Alex, thoughts?

U da man.

_a
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane