Skip to content

Rework built-in models to use Model.remoteMethod #622

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
bajtos opened this issue Oct 7, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Rework built-in models to use Model.remoteMethod #622

bajtos opened this issue Oct 7, 2014 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Oct 7, 2014

Rework all built-in models to register remoting metadata via Model.remoteMethod instead of loopback.remoteMethod and pass method name instead of method function as the first argument.

That way it will be easier to override methods in subclassing models - see #619.

BerkeleyTrue pushed a commit to r3dm/loopback that referenced this issue Dec 28, 2014
This is needed for loopback-connector-remote authorization.
Addresses strongloop#622.
BerkeleyTrue pushed a commit to r3dm/loopback that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2015
This is needed for loopback-connector-remote authorization.
Addresses strongloop#622.
raymondfeng pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2015
2.10.1

 * Optimize the creation of handlers for rest (Raymond Feng)

 * Add a link to gitter chat (Raymond Feng)

 * Added context middleware (Rand McKinney)

 * Use User.remoteMethod instead of loopbacks method This is needed for loopback-connector-remote authorization. Addresses #622. (Berkeley Martinez)
@loay
Copy link
Contributor

loay commented Apr 7, 2016

@bajtos
I see the PR already merged. Can I close this one?
Thanks.

@bajtos
Copy link
Member Author

bajtos commented Apr 7, 2016

@loay I am proposing to mark loopback.remoteMethod as deprecated. The deprecation message should include instructions what to do instead - either call Model.remoteMethod or even better, place the metadata into "methods" in the model JSON file.

Thoughts?

@bajtos
Copy link
Member Author

bajtos commented Apr 7, 2016

Other than that (or after that is landed?), this issue can be closed, indeed.

@loay
Copy link
Contributor

loay commented Apr 7, 2016

I misunderstood, I thought the PR merged before is what was required.

@deepakrkris deepakrkris self-assigned this Dec 1, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants