Me and my questions again. :-)
Altough adding descriptions would not make sense to the core, would it
make sense to change MAFileModel into a MAObject? That would make it
easier to build extensions on top of it.
On 2/23/08, Lukas Renggli <renggli(a)iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> For most simple descriptions, streaming the value is just a
> rendering the value according to the description using the normal
> visitor pattern. However, MAFileModel is a full-blown class and
> doesn't have a corresponding description to guide the process.
Yes, MAFileDescription is sort of a primitive type, mainly because in
the user interface it appears as a single upload/download field.
> What would be the most interesting path here: add the required
> descriptions to the classes or just go ahead and stream the
I guess it would make sense to add these descriptions as a class
extension. This is one of most useful techniques of Magritte, that you
can attach new descriptions to any class in the system. I use this all
> It seems to me that the second options make the Json visitor to
> tightly coupled to the MAFileModel class. On the other hand, adding
> the descriptions may not be that interesting because it would mean
> changing a Magritte base class.
I don't know if it makes sense to add these descriptions to the core
at the moment?
SmallWiki, Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...