• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Default D2W Rules for Components
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Default D2W Rules for Components


  • Subject: Re: Default D2W Rules for Components
  • From: Mark Wardle <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 06:28:37 +0100

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:


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Default D2W Rules for Components
      • From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Default D2W Rules for Components (From: David Holt <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Wonder JavaMonitor problem
  • Next by Date: build path entries missing
  • Previous by thread: Re: [Wonder-disc] Default D2W Rules for Components
  • Next by thread: Re: Default D2W Rules for Components
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread