Pattern Cards+implementation+discussion

Permissions - card controller before filters are declared in a DSL where controller actions (:view, :edit ...) are mapped to an auth category (:read, :write, :comment, :create, :new_cardtype, whatever I need for my app). Now we would call card(self).patterns(:perm => auth_category) which would? Iterate through the patterns matching {|pat| path.action(:perm)(card, arg (which gets auth_category bound to the :perm action)). Someplace :perm is defined in a DSL that can access any of the patterns matching the card to find related cards with the roles and auth_categories allowed or denied for the card. The DSL also defines the return conditions (:allowed, :denieed, or :ok, :deny, :signin ?)

Cardtype - someplace we need to declare that <card>+*Cardtype (or whatever the standard will be) is the cardtype card. Even if it stays in the cards table, this part should be explicite and configureable via patterns.

content-type - I think that the idea of a raw, or primitive cardtype needs to be moved to the content as a "content-type" field that is part of each revision alongside the data (content). I think this will also be central to the API to add primative cardtypes. If a content-type module can handle some foreign content-types on input, they can import from that version on editto automatically convert. If it can't the old content type is still there in the revision history.

templates - this is the most prolific part of the proto-pattern stuff in wagn. I'd like to see how you expect that to work in the patterns version. I think this is a lot like the permissions case where we need a DSL that identifies any existing related template cards based on the patterns, and decides which apply based on view, action, content-type and any other attribute available to the DSL.