You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Randolph Kahle <ra...@variantia.net> on 2004/10/14 02:09:22 UTC
When do I need to define an embedded component?
I have a very simple Border component that renders wrapper HTML and has
a single
<span jwcid="@RenderBody" />
directive.
In the Border.html file I use a Copyright component that also simply
sends
copyright xxx 2004, all rights reserved
to the output.
I noticed that my program works with having to declare the Copyright
component in the Border.jwc file.
What warrants the inclusion of a <component> element in another
component's .jwc file?
Regards,
Randy Kahle
When do I need a .jwc file?
Posted by Andreas Vombach <an...@psi.ch>.
As far as I know from reading the .jwc file is needed for component
specification whereas in the .page file page specification is stored.
But every page consists of components so I wonder is it a good idea /
possible to store specifications in a .jwc even if the page is not
intended to be used as component? (there may be some basics missing from
my understanding)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: When do I need to define an embedded component?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Randolph Kahle wrote:
> If I may follow up then.
>
> At what point does one need to move from informal to formal?
It's really a matter of taste/style. Projects that have real web
designers (not those fake programmer web designers!) that want to work
on the pages in professional web design tools should use the formal
syntax so the types of components and their parameter bindings are in
the specification files, not the templates. This provides a very clean
separation.
I personally prefer to stick with the informal syntax for as long as
possible to avoid indirection. In Eclipse, Spindle makes it easy to
move an informally defined component into the spec.
> Is there an architecturally defined distinction between the two or has
> the addition of informal been an ad-hoc change?
I'm not understanding the question. Both are equivalent in
functionality. The informal syntax was added as a "Tapestry Lite" to
allow for less formal and easier to code templates.
Do what works best for your environment, I'd recommend. Neither is
more right or more wrong.
Erik
>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 5:35 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
>> Randy,
>>
>> There are two styles of declaring components. I prefer to call the
>> two styles formal and informal.
>>
>> Originally Tapestry only allowed formal syntax, that of declaring
>> <component> in the specification file, and using mapping names in the
>> templates. What you've done with @RenderBody, and I'm assuming
>> @Copyright, is use and declare the component in one step informally
>> (which is a new feature in Tapestry 3.0). The informal syntax
>> technically blurs the separation between view and model and purists
>> would argue it should not be used.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I clarified this for you or not. Keep asking if I've
>> not been clear.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Randolph Kahle wrote:
>>
>>> I have a very simple Border component that renders wrapper HTML and
>>> has a single
>>>
>>> <span jwcid="@RenderBody" />
>>>
>>> directive.
>>>
>>> In the Border.html file I use a Copyright component that also simply
>>> sends
>>>
>>> copyright xxx 2004, all rights reserved
>>>
>>> to the output.
>>>
>>> I noticed that my program works with having to declare the Copyright
>>> component in the Border.jwc file.
>>>
>>> What warrants the inclusion of a <component> element in another
>>> component's .jwc file?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Randy Kahle
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: When do I need to define an embedded component?
Posted by Randolph Kahle <ra...@variantia.net>.
Erik,
Yes, the answer is clear.
If I may follow up then.
At what point does one need to move from informal to formal?
Is there an architecturally defined distinction between the two or has
the addition of informal been an ad-hoc change?
Regards,
Randy
On Oct 13, 2004, at 5:35 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> Randy,
>
> There are two styles of declaring components. I prefer to call the
> two styles formal and informal.
>
> Originally Tapestry only allowed formal syntax, that of declaring
> <component> in the specification file, and using mapping names in the
> templates. What you've done with @RenderBody, and I'm assuming
> @Copyright, is use and declare the component in one step informally
> (which is a new feature in Tapestry 3.0). The informal syntax
> technically blurs the separation between view and model and purists
> would argue it should not be used.
>
> I'm not sure if I clarified this for you or not. Keep asking if I've
> not been clear.
>
> Erik
>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Randolph Kahle wrote:
>
>> I have a very simple Border component that renders wrapper HTML and
>> has a single
>>
>> <span jwcid="@RenderBody" />
>>
>> directive.
>>
>> In the Border.html file I use a Copyright component that also simply
>> sends
>>
>> copyright xxx 2004, all rights reserved
>>
>> to the output.
>>
>> I noticed that my program works with having to declare the Copyright
>> component in the Border.jwc file.
>>
>> What warrants the inclusion of a <component> element in another
>> component's .jwc file?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Randy Kahle
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: When do I need to define an embedded component?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Randy,
There are two styles of declaring components. I prefer to call the two
styles formal and informal.
Originally Tapestry only allowed formal syntax, that of declaring
<component> in the specification file, and using mapping names in the
templates. What you've done with @RenderBody, and I'm assuming
@Copyright, is use and declare the component in one step informally
(which is a new feature in Tapestry 3.0). The informal syntax
technically blurs the separation between view and model and purists
would argue it should not be used.
I'm not sure if I clarified this for you or not. Keep asking if I've
not been clear.
Erik
On Oct 13, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Randolph Kahle wrote:
> I have a very simple Border component that renders wrapper HTML and
> has a single
>
> <span jwcid="@RenderBody" />
>
> directive.
>
> In the Border.html file I use a Copyright component that also simply
> sends
>
> copyright xxx 2004, all rights reserved
>
> to the output.
>
> I noticed that my program works with having to declare the Copyright
> component in the Border.jwc file.
>
> What warrants the inclusion of a <component> element in another
> component's .jwc file?
>
> Regards,
>
> Randy Kahle
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org