RE: A "catch-all" component?

> In general, it would be nice if certain directory hierarchies could be
> designated as separate little worlds from the larger 
> component tree. When
> you call into that hierarchy, you check for autohandlers and 
> dhandlers as in
> a top-level request, and the upwards autohandler/dhandler 
> search is limited
> to the little hierarchy.
> 
> As Dave points out the current accepted solution to this 
> problem is the
> subrequest, but it's not ideal. First, the caller of a shared 
> component
> shouldn't have to call that component differently just 
> because it happens to
> make use of a dhandler or autohandler. Second, a subrequest is a heavy
> concept and entails many things that you might not want when 
> just trying to
> use autohandlers/dhandlers in a non-top-level component call.
> 
> Jon
> 
>
But maybe it can be 'as easy' as implementing a 3rd kind of handler, let's say 
a comp_dhandler.
It acts (almost) just like a dhandler but for non-top-level components. It 
should replace the non existent component, so giving output or returning a 
value. No inheritance envolved here (like a dhandler I mean). As soon as a 
certain directory contains this comp_dhandler, well, there you have your 
configuration; on the directory level.
Marc


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf