I have a hacked together version of Radiant with the capability of allowing users to add comments. It''s somewhere between "demo" and "pre-alpha" quality at the moment. I''ll make the code available (as an svn diff against HEAD) in the next few days to anybody who''s interested. Here''s a brain dump of the things I ran into, and my resolutions. I don''t pretend these are the best solutions, but they''re the ones I got working first:-) I gave up the idea of using a comment behavior. I kept running into the problem that behaviors are conceptually exclusive, as opposed to nesting or stacking. Instead, I added a "commentary" page part to each page for which I wanted to allow comments. This "commentary" part contains only an AJAX request link to "Add Comment". Issue: there might have been some way I could have used the Rails "link_to_remote" helper, but I couldn''t figure it out. I just wrote the literal link. Since I wanted to use OpenID instead of the real login system just to authenticate comments, I added a "commentaries" table, model, and controller to the system. So far, I''ve not been successful at making them look like they belong there:-) So the AJAX request causes the link to be replaced by a text field and button for OpenID login. On success (the actual authentication is stubbed in pending some experiments with AJAX and OpenID), this is replaced by fields for name, email, and comment. When the user clicks the submit button on this, it all goes back to the original state with just the "Add Comment" link, which is now below the new comment. This all works fine. The solution to rendering the comments, though, is a complete hack. I added a render_page_commentaries method to behavior.rb that just creates an ERB template, feeds the page''s commentaries through it, and splurts out the result. The radius code in page_context.rb calls this if part_name =~ /commentary/. This is obviously not an ideal solution, but it was a lot quicker than figuring out how to do it in Radius:-) My main conceptual problem in working on this is the lack of model/view separation when the view IS the model. So there you go, for what it''s worth. First, get something working:-) Let me know if you''d like a copy of it when I get it cleaned up a little. --Al Evans -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.