Don't set layout if none is specified

[codeconsole]

Currently if no layout is specified, none is set. Since there is no concept of a none layout in Sitemesh 3, it attempts to find a layout named none.

Before 7 is final, more time will need to be spent perfecting layout resolution. There is not clear separation of concerns.

The following question needs to be addressed prior to RC1

Should layout resolution be specific to controllers? currently (and prior) this trait is applied to Controllers, RestControllers, and Interceptors. I am not sure if RestControllers or Interceptors should be so tightly coupled to SiteMesh.

Perhaps all this layout logic should be removed and done directly inside Controller.

[codeconsole]

codeconsole/grails-plugin-sitemesh3#4

[matrei]

Excellent! This resolves the render(text: '...') problem and three more test are successful in grails-functional-tests.

I have made some comments that I think will make the code clearer and also make it less coupled with a specific layout engine.

[matrei]

Rename method to setLayout and possibly make static?
Param renderView is unused both before and after this change. Remove?
Rename param explicitSiteMeshLayout to layout?

[matrei]

Rename all occurrences in this file of variable name explicitSiteMeshLayout outside of applySiteMeshLayout() to layoutArg?

[matrei]

Also the WebUtils.NONE_LAYOUT is now unused, Delete?

[jeffscottbrown]

Instead of this…

private void setLayout(HttpServletRequest request, String layout) {
    if (layout == null || request.getAttribute(WebUtils.LAYOUT_ATTRIBUTE) != null) {
        // layout has been set already
        return
    }
    request.setAttribute WebUtils.LAYOUT_ATTRIBUTE, layout
}

Could it just be this…

private void setLayout(HttpServletRequest request, String layout) {
    // if layout is provided and the layout attribute hasn’t already been set, set it
    if (layout != null && request.getAttribute(WebUtils.LAYOUT_ATTRIBUTE) == null) {
        request.setAttribute WebUtils.LAYOUT_ATTRIBUTE, layout
    }
}

[codeconsole]

Instead of this…

true, I was working backwards. I guess I was trying to preserve as much of the original code as possible.

[jeffscottbrown]

I guess I was trying to preserve as much of the original code as possible.

My suggestion works against that goal. Please ignore.