Sure, Larry, let me try to put forward what I have in mind, just for the record.<br><br>There is an historically accepted "general" sense to the term "MVC", which I said I was clearly using, and I said I wasn't going to get into the classification game very clearly.<br>
<br>So to use the paradigm of "truth" and "untruth", is to impose an out-of-context excessively abstract grid upon the discussion.<br><br>Drupal is a framework with a big "code debt"; in horrible need of a great deal of refactoring, to say the least; but one thing everyone agrees upon is the possibility of overriding functionality cleanly without hacking core, and the possibility of dealing with persistence, logic and view in cleanly separated ways, is what makes it stand out. I think that is the most important thing. And people should find out about that.<br>
<br>To impose a very abstract design pattern on it, as if it had been designed on that basis, is idealism at its worst: to cram reality into abstract ideas. To put the cart before the horse. To believe that ideas motorize history, in the Hegelian sense. But it is the work of human beings which drives history:<br>
<br>Design patterns are for designing. Drupal wasn't designed around a design pattern, at least not with the granularity you are presupposing. So I don't think there is room for anything more than a very general approach to even speaking of Drupal and design patterns in the same breath.<br>
<br>There may be some sense to speaking of Drupal and design patterns in the context of refactoring. That would be a discussion worth having, based on work, based on a dynamic. Like your excellent discussion on the database abstraction question. <br>
<br>Victor Kane<br><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Larry Garfield <<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I was being polite. I was pointing out that something you said was untrue.<br>
No more, no less.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Victor Kane wrote:<br>
> Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought we were having a polite discussion.<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Larry Garfield <<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a>><br>
><br>
> wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:14:07 -0300, "Victor Kane" <<a href="mailto:victorkane@gmail.com">victorkane@gmail.com</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> > > Quick English translation: Above and beyond classifying Drupal in one<br>
> > > or another design pattern in the strictest sense, we speak of MVC in<br>
> ><br>
> > relation<br>
> ><br>
> > > to Drupal because of its clean separation of data persistence and forms<br>
> > > (model), logic (http request and response, or Drupal page life-cycle)<br>
> ><br>
> > and<br>
> ><br>
> > > view (the HTML that is returned to the browser), and that there are<br>
> > > many API's and opportunities to override in a clean fashion.<br>
> ><br>
> > Which is wrong. 3-part separation does not imply MVC. MVC is one<br>
> > specific 3-part separation that is poorly suited to the web. WebMVC/MVC2<br>
> > is a stupidly named architecture more properly termed "Rails-style",<br>
> > since most of them are inspired by Ruby on Rails' misuse of the term<br>
> > "MVC". I personally happen to think it is a fairly bad architecture,<br>
> > too, but that's more subjective.<br>
> ><br>
> > See the previously posted link for more details, and please stop calling<br>
> > Drupal something it is not.<br>
> ><br>
> > --Larry Garfield<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42<br>
<a href="mailto:larry@garfieldtech.com">larry@garfieldtech.com</a> ICQ: 6817012<br>
<br>
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of<br>
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,<br>
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to<br>
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession<br>
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas<br>
Jefferson<br>
</blockquote></div><br>