[Seaside] Accessing configuration values from the configuration

[William E Harford]

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 21:27 -0700, Julian Fitzell wrote:
> 
> David Shaffer wrote:
> 
> Adding a method is indeed perfectly acceptable in many cases in 
> Smalltalk, William.  Particularly if you are using Monticello (or more 
> specifically PackageInfo I suppose, but whatever) as you can include the 
> method within your package even though it's on another class.  In many 
> cases, adding a method is the cleanest and simplest design decision. 
> Not that I'm saying you should necessarily do so in this case, but your 
> code snippet seemed a bit C-like, so I though perhaps you were new to 
> Smalltalk (forgive me if I'm wrong :) ).

I will have to look at it again and rethink my approach. 

Unfortunately I have a couple projects that will need to get done next
week and I am moving to Toronto the week after that (can we say
stress!!). 

I crap I have been outed! You say the above like there is something
wrong with C :-)

I am new to Smalltalk. My backgound has mostly been in C,PHP,Perl,Java,
and other {}(); languages. I have never particularly cared for the OOP
implementations in most languages. I started development of my own
prototype based OOP language and created a functioning runtime but I
lost interest after discovering that smalltalk is %90 ideal. 

So please forgive me if I go to a lot of effort in my code that is
incredibly simple to do in the "Smalltalk way". It's just the way I am
accustomed to doing it. :-)


> 
> >>Plus I also think it will be easier and clearer to do it by writing my
> >>own configuration class and not modifying the Seaside code. 
> >> 
> >>
> > 
> > Agreed if you figure it out.  It isn't clear to me that the
> > configuration framework supports changing the attribute list although I
> > don't see directly why you couldn't.  I just didn't think about that
> > possibility so certainly that seems like a reasonable thing to try.
> 
> I think the config stuff should be fine with the attribute list changing 
> (I certainly can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work off the top 
> of my head).  But, I also recall thinking that we should be able to 
> easily support custom editors for config options.  As I keep saying, 
> none of this is fresh enough in my mind though... if it doesn't seem 
> easy, I suspect I never quite got to that part when I was implementing 
> it last year.  Avi's been mumbling about simplifying the configuration 
> stuff a bit anyway, so how about I promise to dig back into this stuff 
> next week (I'm going hiking this weekend).  That way I can hopefully 
> better answer your questions and I can properly debate the issue with 
> Avi.  :)
> 
> >>Thanks for your suggestion. 
> >> 
> >>
> > 
> > No problem.  Keep us posted on what you learn!
> 
> Indeed... the configuration stuff is not very broadly used yet so we're 
> keen for any feedback on how it needs improving.
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
-- 
William Harford <will at harford.org>