We launched new forums in March 2019—join us there. In a hurry for help with your website? Get Help Now!
    • 38371
    • 42 Posts
    Quote from: dunnock at May 23, 2013, 10:48 AM
    For the package (if leaving the potential class collision out of the occasion), as the second param is field values for newObject and rest of the object fetching methods usually have criteria. Alternative would be to have third parameter to have the package.


    Yes, I agree that the 2nd parameter should remain the "fields" one. So, the method we are discussing would have the following signature:
    public function modX::newObject(className:string, fields:array, packageName:string)
    


    Quote from: dunnock at May 23, 2013, 10:48 AM
    Added: I guess this topic could be moved to xPDO smiley

    Can I move it or should one of the moderators do it?
      • 42602
      • 81 Posts
      Quote from: leffyrant at May 23, 2013, 09:22 AM
      Can I move it or should one of the moderators do it?

      To be honest, no idea. Most likely moderators have the control over it.
        • 42602
        • 81 Posts
        Quote from: leffyrant at May 23, 2013, 09:22 AM
        Can I move it or should one of the moderators do it?

        To be honest, no idea. Most likely moderators have the control over it. Just hope that people would join in the convo as this has escalated. Which in my opinion is a good thing as in the end, xPDO is the base of MODx.