Re: an outsiders view

B. Kamer a =E9crit :
> Thought: Perhaps we should differentiate between Nodes and smaller
> elements (Atoms?) This way a Node would be a collection of Atoms that
> might consist of several Controller Classes (Atoms) and perhaps one
> Rendering engine. This way we could keep the current notion of a Node a=
s
> an important semantic 'entity' of binarycloud.
...

> Well so far for my thoughts, which I admit are are over the place. I
> would like to see a refinement of binarycloud's current structure of
> Nodes. The current rule of thumb seems to be NODE EQUALS CONTROLLER &
> VIEW which is ( a bit) limited, but really simple too - as a rule it is
> very clear. The changes of subject (types of nodes, connected in any
> 'cloud'-like structure) is probably very flexible & powerful, but also
> adds major complexity for the developer.

As a main contributor for node code, I add here: this discussion already
took place, please consider reading the archives (through Gmane).

For some time we had Apps and Nodes. In fact it was almost impossible to
make really stupid nodes (views). We changed back and defined better
what a Node should do.
I really think that the MVC theory doesn't match exactly the bc design.
But if I may give an advice here: don't loose too much time on this. If
you want MVC frameworks, there are a lot in php. Not sure bc would gain
from such evolution.
The best proposal in this thread is to have a ndf editor and get rid of
typing xml ;-)

This said, I'm no more in charge of binarycloud evolution, so do it as
you think it's good :p

--=20
Jean-Christophe Michel
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev-PnctHDZWAvB/Cz2I37pSEPZ4XP/[email protected]
http://lists.binarycloud.com/mailman/listinfo/dev