elmar.DOT.hinz at team.MINUS.red.DOT.net
Sat May 12 18:14:13 CEST 2007
> And should it be like this for objects?
> $TS['we']['all']['love']['_OBJECT'] = 'TEXT';
> $TS['we']['all']['love']['value']['_VALUE'] = 'upper';
That's a nice extension to the basical idea.
By doing a second step from here it would even be possible to migrate the
PHP configuration arrays like TCA to TS to get a single configuration
format for all parts of T3.
> The idea is to represent in TS 2.0 TS objects as PHP objects, so there
> will be no array any more.
I fully agree that TS objects should controll real objects instead of
functions like in infamous class.tslib_content.php.
But I have serious doubts, if it is a wise idea to use objects for the
internal represantation of the mere TS configuration. That looks a little
to eager to me.
Kind of oversized. Performance decreases. The work to manipulate the
configuration within your PHP code increaes. You can't overwrite a simple
array anymore. I wonder, what shall be gained, while such a high price is
I see parallels to the decision to store translations into XML. That was
politically corret at that time, but technically unnecessary. Providing
translations became a burdon since then. UTF-8 translations in typoscript
format would have been an improvement.
More information about the TYPO3-project-5_0-general