20 Feb
2010
20 Feb
'10
7:27 p.m.
Lukas,
I must agree with John. I never understood your quick and anti-relationship responses. I
think it is an important part of the meta model that you can try to model a complex
scenario with relationships. I agree that it is difficult to find a default behaviour of
all those. I would like to hear your answers to Johns questions as well.
Just to repeat myself. You can specify a relationship to a variety of possible target
classes. I'm not sure what reference is meant for exaclty but I can't barely
imagine a case where the component to build is not dependent on the object being edited. I
would be glad to hear something that conflicts with this.
thanks,
Norbert
On 20.02.2010, at 15:20, John McKeon wrote:
Hello Lukas,
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Lukas Renggli <renggli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't
MARelationComponent>>editorFor: anObject
^ (self description reference asComponentOn: anObject)
addValidatedForm;
yourself
be rather
MARelationComponent>>editorFor: anObject
^ (anObject description asComponentOn: anObject)
addValidatedForm;
yourself
?
It depends what you want to do. I suggest that you create a subclass
that works for your use-case.
As I already explained here several times, I've personally never used
the relationships. I rarely found the default behavior useful, and
another default behavior was not useful in other contexts.
I have always found this statement to be somewhat disturbing on each of those several
occasions.
Could you elaborate on this a little? What *would* you use to describe a collection? Do
you mean that you always subclass the needed relationship classes to suit your needs?
Thanks
John
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
http://www.lukas-renggli.ch
_______________________________________________
Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki
--
http://jmck.seasidehosting.st
_______________________________________________
Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki