>Its more a thing where we want to attach capabilities to an object per
package instance or site wide. ie: this could be used to say "these objects are searhable,commentable, record views for these objects"... or am I off track.
>
>Dave
the question is, do we need the ability per object, per object type, per package/object_type combination or site wide. But attaching capabilities sounds to me like something that could be achieved through standard methods which could then be extended, by whatever means we choose.
As an example I was wondering why we have /file and /image and /o, where /o should be able to handle file and image as well.
But either way, the question remains how to "fix" the immediate need of having views tracking even in the /file /image and /o pages provided by acs-subsite. Maybe you guys have some ideas on that? The easiest approach (for me at least) would be to have a callback hook with the object type, somehthing like "object::view -object_id -object_type" (and yes, we are again having the fundamental discussion here, should we call only the implementation of the object_type or should we have it call all existing implementations which could then discard the callback if the object type is not dealt with in the implementation. 1) is better performing, 2) gives greater flexibility to register custom implementations).
