durusmail: quixote-users: _q_resolve vs direct call of method
_q_resolve vs direct call of method
2005-04-20
2005-04-20
2005-04-20
2005-04-20
2005-04-20
_q_resolve vs direct call of method (re-post)
2005-04-20
_q_resolve vs direct call of method
R J Ladyman
2005-04-20
Jason,

I haven't received your original posting via the list - would you mind either
reposting or sending on to me? it at file-away dot co dot uk

RJL


> Quoting Mike Orr :
> > "Generally want to"?  Why is that?  Sometimes you naturally have a
> > function to return; other times not.  The main time I've used ._q_lookup
> > is to return a sub-directory, but sometimes you can calcuate the answer
> > all in the same method.
>
> I say "Generally want to," because in Qx 1.x (which is what the OP was
asking
> about), that seemed to be how the Qx developers intended it.  There are (in
> 1.x) two distinct phases of the publishing process: traversal and
publishing.
> If you (as an anonymous developer, not you specifically) keep them distinct
in
> your head, you'll be happier in the long run.  By writing your app code that
> way, it would "just work."  Sure, you can return a string literal, and it
will
> work, but that has been known to cause confusion and problems for people on
> this list in the past.  Just my 2 cents, YMMV, yada yada yada.  If you
> understand the intricacies of what to do, when, and never shoot yourself in
the
> foot, or spend three hours troubleshooting something really stupid, more
power
> to you.  I, on the other hand, have made enough mistakes of that sort that I
> prefer to write my code defensively, hopefully minimizing the number of
> three-hour-head-bangers I encounter/create.  Hence, "generally want to"
rather
> than "must" or "should" or "have to".  I usually place a high value on
> maintainability.
>
> > >The publisher, seeing it got a callable back, will call it for you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's ._q_traverse in Quixote 2.
>
> Sure, but... _q_traverse didn't exist in 1.x, and that's what the OP was
asking
> about.  I think I snipped that part of the original message when I replied.
I
> probably shouldn't have.  Sorry if that caused confusion.
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> Quixote-users mailing list
> Quixote-users@mems-exchange.org
> http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
>
>

--

Robert Ladyman
Tel: +44 (0) 7732 771 649
Skype: rjlfile-away
http://www.file-away.co.uk

Sent to you via the Magach Wireless Network
http://www.file-away.co.uk/rlan.htm


reply