Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: .LRN Planner code leakaing into application packages.

Hi Dave,

I was about to post in the forums about this package, I have not finished that wiki page... I've corrected the callbacks, it is not dotlrn::blocks:: but planner::, I know for this matters I could implement the subsite callbacks, in fact I am using the current search::url, the packages that had it already implemented I'm using that existing one, for the ones that's not implemented I did, for the other callbacks:

2. dotlrn::blocks::edit_url -> planner::edit_url
3. dotlrn::blocks::delete_url -> planner::delete_url

I believe for this callbacks are a very specific case for the planner and I didn't think that would be helpful to other packages that's why I didn't implement them as subsite::...

About dotlrn as the namespace, this was not my approach, the real code is not like that, that was some old writing that went in the wiki page without I noticing it, I've updated it. If it is better to define all callbacks in subsite namespace, let me know and I can do that. This package works with a script that will patch the packages in order to work all together.

This package is not part of a official release and I'm not committing anything to other packages, I now this package includes some things that could be generic to use in the toolkit and I'm sure this needs some work, I'm just doing this so that people can start using it, thanks for the feedback, this is good in order to improve this package and hopefully one day it could be part of dotlrn official release.

I will be making an announcement about this package, we can always talk this over in a .lrn meeting.