Can extensions replace extractors/transformers/formatters? #420
Replies: 3 comments 8 replies
-
#417 is one step in this direction, allowing for class and view-specific extensions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sub-topic for how we'd release all this without disrupting people's configurations too much. First thought is:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm overall for making Blueprinter more customisable! And I've suggested a few things myself:
In general, I think blueprinter has such as small scope so I'm not sure a full 'extension system' is needed. Just a few though-out hooks should be enough. Take rails for example (a huge framework), they didn't have an extension system for a long time, but it's very easy to customize. That said, if there is a preference for putting all the hooks into an something called an extension system, I'm not against it. Happy to provide feedback if there is a sketch or code plan of some sort! (public APIs, etc) Some random thoughts:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is a space to discuss how we might fold Blueprinter's various customization options (extractors, transformers, formatters, etc) into the recently added extension system.
Goals
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions