| Issue 5: | Support for multiple "ContentPlaceHolders" |
1 of 23
Next ›
|
| 11 people starred this issue and may be notified of changes. | Back to list |
Is there a way to have something like "ContentPlaceholders" in the master file as in aspx forms, so that I can replace for example the content in the TitleRegion specified in the master file with content coming from the the current view? |
|
,
Jul 31, 2008
Yes, to do this just use the partial operator '_' with no arguments. Take a look at the Application.haml layout in the MVC sample project. |
|
,
Jul 31, 2008
I meant multiple "named" placeholders, not just for the main content view, sorry. So in a .master file I would have for example: <html> <head> <title><asp:contentplaceholder id="TitleRegion" /></title> <script>......</script> <style>....</style> <link>....</link> <asp:contentplaceholder id="AddToHeadRegion" /> </head> <body> .... .... <asp:contentplaceholder id="MainToolbarButtonsRegion" /> .... .... <asp:contentplaceholder id="ContentRegion" /> </body> </html> and in each .aspx page I could provide content for any of the above named regions: // mysampleview.aspx <asp:content contenteplaceholderid="TitleRegion">This is the title for the current page</asp:content> <asp:content contentplaceholderid="AddToHeadRegion"> <script language="javascript" src="script_for_this_specific_page.js" /> </asp:content> <asp:content contentplaceholderid="ContentRegion"> My main content goes here </asp:content> // end I'm looking for a similar thing in nhaml, but until now and unless I'm missing something, I've only seen being able to define just the "main content" placeholder. I'm really looking forward to use this great view engine, but this is the only thing holding me back and forces me to continue writing my views in the webforms view engine. Again, I might be missing something obvious here. Thanks for you answer in advance. |
|
,
Jul 31, 2008
The Title part can be handled using the preamble operator '^'. E.g.
-- Layout
^ var title = "My Default Title"
!!!
%html{xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"}
%head
%title= title
-- View
^ title = "Add Product"
This operator lets you specify code that should be eval'ed first.
|
|
,
Aug 21, 2008
Is it possible to have more than one partials equivalent to aronne2s comment above?
For example, if I have 2 or more ContentPlaceHolders in my master file (one for main
view and one for a sidebar view).
A better example would be
<html>
<head>
<title>Title</title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="leftColumn">
<asp:contentplaceholder id="MainToolbarButtonsRegion" />
</div>
<div class="rightColumn">
<asp:contentplaceholder id="ContentRegion" />
</div>
</body>
</html>
|
|
,
Sep 30, 2008
I think this could be done with RenderAction. Example:
%p
= Html.RenderAction("AddMainToolbarButtonsRegion")
The you have to implement AddMainToolbarButtonsRegion as Action in you Controller
which can return a second view or plain content or something else.
|
|
,
Oct 23, 2008
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Labels: -Type-Defect Type-Enhancement
|
|
,
May 14, 2009
Since there is no feedback i expect
Html.RenderAction("AddMainToolbarButtonsRegion")
resolves the problem.
Status: WontFix
|
|
,
May 14, 2009
Yes, Html.RenderAction would be one way to do this.
But there are other ways to do it which I think are very useful, which are named
blocks a la Django Templates or content placeholders a la ASP.NET. Ruby Haml does not
do this, but we are asking kindly for an extension to the Haml language which would
implement named blocks or content placeholders.
Possible syntax for Application.haml, using '?' not at the top-level.
%html
%head
%title
?myTitleBlock
Default Title, In Case Concrete View Page Doesn't Override This Block
%body
?myBodyBlock
%h1= Default Header, In Case Concrete View Page Doesn't Override This Block
Possible syntax for ConcreteView.haml, using '?' at top level indicating to override
a named block, and not overriding another named block leaving it as the default
defined in Application.haml.
?myBodyBlock
%h1= Overridden Header.
%p= First paragraph of overriding text.
%p= Second paragraph of overriding text.
%ul
- foreach(var obj in Model.Objects)
%li= obj.Text
|
|
,
May 14, 2009
Hmm i dont think that we need an lang extension here. Better would be an haml
specific helper method in like this:
%p
- var myBodyBlock = CaptureFor() ()=>
%h1= Overridden Header.
...
and later you do
%html
%head
%title
- myTitleBlock()
%body
- myTitleBlock()
|
|
,
May 14, 2009
(No comment was entered for this change.)
Status: Accepted
|
|
,
May 14, 2009
Thank you for considering and reopening the ticket. You are right that, technically, we can do the same thing without a language extension. However, based on seeing Django Templates and ASP.NET content placeholders, I think that a language extension in that spirit would be a much cleaner solution, and is a solution that people would want to use. Instead of Application.haml having one unnamed hole where concrete view content goes, Application.haml would have multiple named holes and the concrete view would have multiple named hole-fillers. People would be able to use either strategy, the one-unnamed-hole strategy or the multiple- named-holes strategy, at their option. |
|
,
May 14, 2009
Yeah, we should do something here as it makes sense. I would suggest something in the spirit of how Rails does it: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/CaptureHelper.html#M001731 http://www.inthetail.com/2008/4/24/ruby-on-rails-content_for - Andrew. |
|
,
May 14, 2009
The way Rails does it looks decent. I like the way it treats it as an iterable, rather than as a single item, so that (to port this to NHaml) for example Application.haml could declare a single hole in the <head /> element and then concrete a concrete view could declare multiple hole-fillers that would fill the hole - for example, it could declare multiple <script /> or <link rel="stylesheet" /> elements in different places as hole-fillers, and they would all be used in order of declaration to fill the one hole. A language extension of one character would be nice, because it would then mesh well with the rest of the Haml language. |
|
,
May 15, 2009
While I use Rails almost every day, I actually prefer the old ASP.NET approach because it allows a default value which can then be overridden. The way I use it, I usually have some kind of sidebar which varies it's content on some pages. This sidebar's default value is defined in the MasterPage and overridden in the pages that need it. If the solution is simply a helper, then there should probably be two. A helper in the Application.haml that takes a block and either shows it or shows data passed up from a subview if it exists and the above mentioned helper for capturing that data in the subview. |
|
,
Jul 16, 2009
My input: I think the approach from comment #10 is the best one. Other suggestions are basically workarounds. #10 is the real deal. |
|
,
Nov 05, 2009
I second #10 |
|
,
Nov 06, 2009
Nathan Weizenbaum has answered about this question. He think it is not a good idea to extend this as language feature and i am still have the same opinion about it. http://groups.google.com/group/haml/browse_thread/thread/f109a30905ef6f3a?hl=en The best way is to implement it as helper like this: %html %head %title =TryRender("myTitleBlock") => Default Title, In Case Concrete View Page Doesn't Override This Block %body %h1 -Capture("myBodyBlock") => = Default Header, In Case Concrete View Page Doesn't Override |
|
| ► Sign in to add a comment |
