Re: [SMARTY-DEV] Re: object support

Thanks for considering this. From: "Monte Ohrt" <monte@ispi.net> ... > This sounds like a sound solution, I like the registering idea. I think > there still needs to be a distinction between function calls and object > calls: I respectfully disagree. A template designer does not need to know the underlying technology behind a template call. As far as a template designer is concerned, he/she is given a very simple API with functions and parameters and shouldn't have to know *anything* about how that API is implemented. A template designer cannot be expected to know anything about OOP and so these differences in syntax are going to be confusing. I don't want to have to explain anything about OO in my "how to write a template" docs! ... > and doesn't mask the object model, but I think it is a good idea to make > a distinction between them. This keeps the template functionality > consistant, and also makes debugging/maintentance easier when you can > see the difference between a function call and object call in the > template. From a debugging point of view, I contend that since the developer is providing access to very specific aspects of the object's API, it should not be too confusing. However, I understand that this may not make sense for very large projects which are giving access to extensive APIs. > To be able to access an object, it must be registered: > > $smarty->register_object('theme', $theme, > array('foo','bar','blah')); > > This will register the object by reference. The third parameter sets > what methods are accessible from the template. If no third parameter is > given, then all methods are accessible, except for internal methods > which begin with "_" I definitely like this (especially since I'm using the _ for my private methods so I wouldn't have to go changing a lot of code). It's also far more efficient than the hack I was using. Would it be possible to compromise and use a syntax like this?: {theme.foo p1="blah"} This is somewhat similar to our existing ${array.member} syntax so it will be a little more recognizeable to a template designer while still providing a clue to the developer that this is an OO callback. I have not looked under the covers so I don't know how difficult that might be to implement. Thanks again, -Bharat