durusmail: qp: Re: convention for 'local_ui' in qp?
convention for 'local_ui' in qp?
2005-11-06
2005-11-06
Re: convention for 'local_ui' in qp?
2005-11-07
2005-11-07
2005-11-07
2005-11-07
2005-11-07
2005-11-07
Re: convention for 'local_ui' in qp?
David Binger
2005-11-07
On Nov 6, 2005, at 8:38 PM, Michael Watkins wrote:

> * David Binger wrote [2005-11-06 20:05:28 -0500]:
>> The number of calls doesn't seem so important as the number of
>> methods/functions.  Right now, the number of such functions seems
>> pretty
>> small.  If that changes, I imagine the publisher might delegate,
>> as you
>> suggest, to another object.
>
> As I noted in my criss-crossing message before your reply, there
> really are
> not that many methods/functions, once we factor out what has already
> disappeared or been relocated in QP.
>
> So until I hear from you otherwise, I'll keep assuming /expecting to
> see such things as format_date and get_*_[mapping|db] as being
> associated
> directly with the publisher object...

I think that would be best.

Sorry for the criss-cross.

reply