You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> on 2005/07/20 17:35:28 UTC
Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
discuss the binding prefixes.
I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
can change things around.
I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
annotations).
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
#3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
> Doesn't this just refute what you were saying above? Sounds like you're
> willing to forego consistency so long as it matches your development
> style . . .
Of course I have a personal development style (like everyone else has).
But I think that I follow good development rules, and I like
self-containment.
I dislike the idea that the <binding> element (along with global,
unmodifiable framework rules) do not determine all properties of the
binding, instead the binding type is defined in a separate file.
I have no other argument against default-binding.
As I wrote I don't mind if it remains in the framework but in that case I
will (and already do) always use explicit binding prefixes.
> FWIW, what I was proposing is that the default would be literal: or
> something, and if you, the more advanced user, so chose, you could change
> the default to message:. I did just throw it out there as a simple
> solution, but now that I think about it more, it doesn't seem that bad.
> Tapestry already has a base set of defaults that are overridable by the
> more savvy user. So, it's not as if we'd be introducing a huge paradigm
> shift.
In this case it should be configurable per component library, not per
application. (Because - as it seems - users have different preference :)
But I feel it to be more consistent if the framework defines the default (so
it is not configurable).
But again: this is only my personal opinion.
Br,
Norbi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Menard" <km...@servprise.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
On Jul 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Norbert Sándor wrote:
> If implicit components are not used then in the template only literal: is
> used.
> In most cases I use ognl: binding in the specs (even now when the new
> bindings are available).
>
> That's why I think that in the spec. the default should be ognl:.
I hardly ever use literal:, page spec or HTML; I almost always use
ognl:. So who's right on what the default should be? Really, I'm
less concerned about what the default is. The context in which the
component is defined really shouldn't change how it's used, and
that's what concerns me.
As a beginner with Tapestry, that burned me a few times, btw. It's
another rule to learn that doesn't really seem to serve much of a
purpose, other than to tailor to how people choose to use implicit VS
declared components, which is very much a stylistic thing.
> I think that consistency is the key: I would prefer the default- binding
> to be removed.
> Another configuration option or other solution would make bindings only
> more complicated which would confuse users.
Doesn't this just refute what you were saying above? Sounds like
you're willing to forego consistency so long as it matches your
development style . . .
FWIW, what I was proposing is that the default would be literal: or
something, and if you, the more advanced user, so chose, you could
change the default to message:. I did just throw it out there as a
simple solution, but now that I think about it more, it doesn't seem
that bad. Tapestry already has a base set of defaults that are
overridable by the more savvy user. So, it's not as if we'd be
introducing a huge paradigm shift.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
I do see your argument that for furthest consistency (between HTML
template and page spec) then the default should always be literal.
On 7/21/05, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Norbert Sándor wrote:
>
> > If implicit components are not used then in the template only
> > literal: is used.
> > In most cases I use ognl: binding in the specs (even now when the
> > new bindings are available).
> >
> > That's why I think that in the spec. the default should be ognl:.
>
> I hardly ever use literal:, page spec or HTML; I almost always use
> ognl:. So who's right on what the default should be? Really, I'm
> less concerned about what the default is. The context in which the
> component is defined really shouldn't change how it's used, and
> that's what concerns me.
>
> As a beginner with Tapestry, that burned me a few times, btw. It's
> another rule to learn that doesn't really seem to serve much of a
> purpose, other than to tailor to how people choose to use implicit VS
> declared components, which is very much a stylistic thing.
>
> > I think that consistency is the key: I would prefer the default-
> > binding to be removed.
> > Another configuration option or other solution would make bindings
> > only more complicated which would confuse users.
>
> Doesn't this just refute what you were saying above? Sounds like
> you're willing to forego consistency so long as it matches your
> development style . . .
>
> FWIW, what I was proposing is that the default would be literal: or
> something, and if you, the more advanced user, so chose, you could
> change the default to message:. I did just throw it out there as a
> simple solution, but now that I think about it more, it doesn't seem
> that bad. Tapestry already has a base set of defaults that are
> overridable by the more savvy user. So, it's not as if we'd be
> introducing a huge paradigm shift.
>
> --
> Kevin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Jul 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Norbert Sándor wrote:
> If implicit components are not used then in the template only
> literal: is used.
> In most cases I use ognl: binding in the specs (even now when the
> new bindings are available).
>
> That's why I think that in the spec. the default should be ognl:.
I hardly ever use literal:, page spec or HTML; I almost always use
ognl:. So who's right on what the default should be? Really, I'm
less concerned about what the default is. The context in which the
component is defined really shouldn't change how it's used, and
that's what concerns me.
As a beginner with Tapestry, that burned me a few times, btw. It's
another rule to learn that doesn't really seem to serve much of a
purpose, other than to tailor to how people choose to use implicit VS
declared components, which is very much a stylistic thing.
> I think that consistency is the key: I would prefer the default-
> binding to be removed.
> Another configuration option or other solution would make bindings
> only more complicated which would confuse users.
Doesn't this just refute what you were saying above? Sounds like
you're willing to forego consistency so long as it matches your
development style . . .
FWIW, what I was proposing is that the default would be literal: or
something, and if you, the more advanced user, so chose, you could
change the default to message:. I did just throw it out there as a
simple solution, but now that I think about it more, it doesn't seem
that bad. Tapestry already has a base set of defaults that are
overridable by the more savvy user. So, it's not as if we'd be
introducing a huge paradigm shift.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
>> I prefer option #2 where the absence of a binding prefix indicates a
>> literal, _both_ in templates and specifications.
>> Informal parameters are always treated as literals, unless otherwise
>> indicated. Formal parameters should be no different.
>
> As I indicated earlier, I am all in favor of this. I'm not sure that
> "literal" is the best default, but I think the default should be
> consistent
> in both contexts.
If implicit components are not used then in the template only literal: is
used.
In most cases I use ognl: binding in the specs (even now when the new
bindings are available).
That's why I think that in the spec. the default should be ognl:.
>> #2 is definitely an improvement over #3.
>>
>> The only purpose for #1 is to save typing time. Unfortunately, I find
>> that the time saved on typing is eclipsed by the time spent looking up
>> the default binding prefix values in the component reference (it isn't
>> always as obvious as the example below).
>> To avoid this nuisance, I find myself /always/ using a prefix - but is
>> this not the opposite of this enhancement's intent?
>
> Rather than throw the whole thing out, would it be better to try and
> address
> these ambiguous circumstances? It seems the one that keeps being
> mentioned
> is literal VS message. Maybe there could just be a Tapestry property that
> switches between the two. I don't know that yet another configuration
> value
> is the right solution, I'm just throwing that out there.
I think that consistency is the key: I would prefer the default-binding to
be removed.
Another configuration option or other solution would make bindings only more
complicated which would confuse users.
Br,
Norbi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Wednesday 20 July 2005 19:38, Paul Ferraro wrote:
> I prefer option #2 where the absence of a binding prefix indicates a
> literal, _both_ in templates and specifications.
> Informal parameters are always treated as literals, unless otherwise
> indicated. Formal parameters should be no different.
As I indicated earlier, I am all in favor of this. I'm not sure that
"literal" is the best default, but I think the default should be consistent
in both contexts.
> #2 is definitely an improvement over #3.
>
> The only purpose for #1 is to save typing time. Unfortunately, I find
> that the time saved on typing is eclipsed by the time spent looking up
> the default binding prefix values in the component reference (it isn't
> always as obvious as the example below).
> To avoid this nuisance, I find myself /always/ using a prefix - but is
> this not the opposite of this enhancement's intent?
Rather than throw the whole thing out, would it be better to try and address
these ambiguous circumstances? It seems the one that keeps being mentioned
is literal VS message. Maybe there could just be a Tapestry property that
switches between the two. I don't know that yet another configuration value
is the right solution, I'm just throwing that out there.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Paul Ferraro <pa...@gmail.com>.
I prefer option #2 where the absence of a binding prefix indicates a
literal, _both_ in templates and specifications.
Informal parameters are always treated as literals, unless otherwise
indicated. Formal parameters should be no different.
#2 is definitely an improvement over #3.
The only purpose for #1 is to save typing time. Unfortunately, I find
that the time saved on typing is eclipsed by the time spent looking up
the default binding prefix values in the component reference (it isn't
always as obvious as the example below).
To avoid this nuisance, I find myself /always/ using a prefix - but is
this not the opposite of this enhancement's intent?
Paul
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
>discuss the binding prefixes.
>
>I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
>can change things around.
>
>I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
>on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
>for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
>annotations).
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
>vs.
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
>vs.
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
>I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
>#3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
>What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (TAPESTRY-419) CookieSource should support timeouts and path
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
> The default bindings make sense and you can ignore the defaults and put
> prefixes everywhere.
It may be true for small projects and for 1or few developers but I think
that the framework should force the developers to create well readable,
maintainable and unified code.
> Also, I enjoy being able to set the default bindings for the parameters
This is a little bit subjective argument :)
Of course I won't kill myself if defauhe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-419?page=all ]
Eli Doran updated TAPESTRY-419:
-------------------------------
Attachment: CookieSource.diff
CookieSourceImpl.diff
These are the diff files containing the necessary changes. For the CookieSource interface it adds a few writeCookieValue methods accepting arguments for maxAge, path and a Cookie instance.
> CookieSource should support timeouts and path
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-419
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-419
> Project: Tapestry
> Type: Improvement
> Components: Framework
> Versions: 4.0
> Reporter: Eli Doran
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: CookieSource.diff, CookieSourceImpl.diff
>
> CookieSource needs support flt-binding remains because I prepared
my current application for this: I use explicit binding prefixes everywhere
;)
Br,
Norbi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
or writing cookies with a 'max age' and a certain path.
> Note: I've written the necessary changes and will provide a patch.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Eli Doran <el...@gmail.com>.
I enjoy #1. It's a real improvement.
Every once in a while i hit a problem and go "oops, need to specify the
binding" but that happens rarely and is easy to fix.
The default bindings make sense and you can ignore the defaults and put
prefixes everywhere.
Also, I enjoy being able to set the default bindings for the parameters
of components I create.
~eli
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
>discuss the binding prefixes.
>
>I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
>can change things around.
>
>I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
>on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
>for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
>annotations).
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
>vs.
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
>vs.
>
><form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
>I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
>#3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
>What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
>
>
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Ron Piterman <rp...@gmx.net>.
I would like to join the discussion with a small example.
Ofcouse listener="listener:..." is obsolete. BUT, not every parameter is
so clear.
For me, the Shell's title should be a message, not a literal. For
someone else, its a literal. oops - look at the docu. The same with all
literals, except for "element" in For. But in the short time I use 4.0 I
really got confused, and wished this would be different.
If one keeps an eye on the learning curve, I think #2 is the golden
middle. This is also my favourite.
Cheers,
Ron
ציטוט Howard Lewis Ship:
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Danny Mandel <dm...@tolweb.org>.
+1
Danny
Norbert Sándor wrote:
> I would choose #2 and completely remove default-binding to enforce
> well readable, consistent binding definitions.
> If a binding prefix is not defined:
> - in jwc/page it is ognl:
> - in template it is literal
>
> Br,
> Norbi
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:35 PM
> Subject: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
>
>
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with
> Tapestry?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
I think that "more readable != shorter" by all means...
When default-binding is defined on a parameter then one cannot determine the
binding type just by reading the source code of a component. Therefore the
source code is harder to read. The binding definition falls apart two parts
in 2 separate files: the real <binding> and the default-binding which
actually defines the binding type.
It may seem trivial in case of listeners but it is not so logical for other
types.
For a very simple example the component developer decided that Submit's
label parameter's binding type is "literal" by default. I personally never
use it with literal: (instead almost always with message:), so when I see
<component id="sample" type="Submit">
<binding name="label" value="submit" />
...
then "submit" is a literal but it could be a message key or an OGNL
expression
as well.
I must check the Submit component's specification to make sure what it
really is.
It is application/developer dependent which default binding type fits best,
but in my opinion this changes even in an application!
This will be even worse in real applications and especially in case of
complex
third-party component libraries.
To make the component sources more consistent and easier to read,
default-binding should be removed, and if no explicit binding prefix is
defined then it should be handled as
- ognl in jwc/page
- literal in template
If default-binding remains in the framework then the only way to make the
sources easy to read is to always use an
explicit binding prefix. So if one wants to create easily shareable sources
then default-binding saves no coding just forces some extra code:
the ognl: and literal: prefix should always be explicitly defined as well.
Br,
Norbi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Nelson" <cn...@yahoo.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
> Umm, how is listener="listener:doSubmit" more readable
> than listener="doSubmit"?
>
> Just curious...
>
> --- Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:
>
>> I would choose #2 and completely remove
>> default-binding to enforce well
>> readable, consistent binding definitions.
>> If a binding prefix is not defined:
>> - in jwc/page it is ognl:
>> - in template it is literal
>>
>> Br,
>> Norbi
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
>> To: "Tapestry development"
>> <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:35 PM
>> Subject: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
>>
>>
>> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
>> become easier to
>> discuss the binding prefixes.
>>
>> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
>> get a consensus, we
>> can change things around.
>>
>> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
>> binding prefixes
>> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
>> defaults: literal:
>> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
>> elsewhere (such as
>> annotations).
>>
>> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> <form jwcid="@Form"
>> listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>>
>>
>> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
>> Either is better than
>> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>>
>> What are people finding now that they are
>> (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
>> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
>> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>>
>> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
>> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Chris Nelson <cn...@yahoo.com>.
Umm, how is listener="listener:doSubmit" more readable
than listener="doSubmit"?
Just curious...
--- Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:
> I would choose #2 and completely remove
> default-binding to enforce well
> readable, consistent binding definitions.
> If a binding prefix is not defined:
> - in jwc/page it is ognl:
> - in template it is literal
>
> Br,
> Norbi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tapestry development"
> <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:35 PM
> Subject: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
>
>
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
> become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
> get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
> binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
> defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
> elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form"
> listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
> Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are
> (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
I would choose #2 and completely remove default-binding to enforce well
readable, consistent binding definitions.
If a binding prefix is not defined:
- in jwc/page it is ognl:
- in template it is literal
Br,
Norbi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
discuss the binding prefixes.
I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
can change things around.
I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
annotations).
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
#3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Andreas Andreou <an...@di.uoa.gr>.
When this discussion first came up in this list, I was really against
having default binding prefixes at all. However, I didn't have the time
to test
Tap4 back then so I kept my mouth shut.
Well, for the last 2 weeks I'm really testing v4 and I found out that
default bindings
are very natural to use (at least in HTMLs, I haven't seen what goes in
in XMLs). Perhaps it
has to do with the experience I already have with v3, but I NEVER (not
even a single time)
did I have to consult the documentation for checking the default bindings.
It always is the one I try!
So, I'm currently in favor of having default bindings, and using #1
Kevin Menard wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
>>
>> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with
>> Tapestry?
>
>
> I prefer #1. What I am not a big fan of, however, is how the default
> binding prefix is different for HTML and XML files. Since the two
> contexts have two different defaults, components can't rely on a
> single default and thus component parameters that may only be ognl
> expressions must provide a default-binding. If both the HTML & XML
> files defaulted to ognl, then it would simplify components. Second,
> I find I tend to move components back & forth from my HTML to XML
> files. This doesn't happen a lot, but it would be nice if I could
> rely on the same default semantics.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with
> Tapestry?
I prefer #1. What I am not a big fan of, however, is how the default
binding prefix is different for HTML and XML files. Since the two
contexts have two different defaults, components can't rely on a
single default and thus component parameters that may only be ognl
expressions must provide a default-binding. If both the HTML & XML
files defaulted to ognl, then it would simplify components. Second,
I find I tend to move components back & forth from my HTML to XML
files. This doesn't happen a lot, but it would be nice if I could
rely on the same default semantics.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with
> Tapestry?
I personally prefer #1, but that has been the trouble-maker. #2
isn't bad. #3 frightens me.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Ahmed Mohombe <am...@yahoo.com>.
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
> vs.
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
> vs.
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
#1 is better for humans to read and write.
#3 is better for IDEs cause one can always trigger an ONGL parser +
extras when 'ongl:' is present :). Without that, I suppose it will be
harder to make tools :).
Ahmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Mikaël Cluseau <nw...@nwrk.dyndns.org>.
Since Tapestry 4.0 will be a transition release, I would (still) tend in
favor of #2 with default to «ognl» in specifications and to «literal» in
templates. This will be one less thing to do when migrating from 3.0 to
4.0.
I did my migration (around 150 pages or components) as of alpha-3 and
default prefixes were annoying enough to make me put prefixes
everywhere.
I also (still) think that we need something consistent. It is a bit less
«elegant» to type «listener="listener:x"» than «listener="x"», but this
is a special case :
1. the «listener» parameter accepts only ActionListeners ;
2. the name «listener» explicits the nature of the value, not it's
function, so one could perfectly call it «on-submit» for Form,
«on-click» for DirectLink, etc (to be completely honest, I think
that's what I would have done). Then, «listener:»
«on-submit="listener:doSubmit"» doesn't looks so useless...
Since we *must* link subject to Tapestry's philosophy, here are some
links to some values : ^_^
* Simplicity : you don't need experience about components you use
to know what you are giving to them.
* Consistency : default prefix is defined once for all and thus is
shared over any component or page.
* Efficiency : ..... maybe we avoid some parsing and lookup
time.... but also, more likely, some time thinking about what is
the most intuitive default or looking for what the default is.
* Feedback : when things go wrong, you immediately know which
values where given to your components. This is simply easier to
understand since you don't have to remember what the default
prefix is.
«The decisions you make early in a project should not come back later to
haunt you» statement is no more true :
* as component-user, if you rely on a component build by someone
else and he changes the default prefix, you have to hunt the
references to this component to change then accordingly ;
* as component-provider, if your intuition is not the one of your
users, your earlier decision will come back to haunt you...
«The simplest choice should be the correct choice» doesn't seems linked
to this subject but feel free to correct me :-)
Hope this helps.
Mikael.
Le mercredi 20 juillet 2005 à 11:35 -0400, Howard Lewis Ship a écrit :
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com>.
Before I started to convert our current project to T4, I was against
the default bindings. But I have to say that I don't dislike them at
all finally. Most of the time the default binding is quite intuitive,
the prefixes have been bringing many other kinds of issues that far
(mostly because documentation is still missing)...
Henri.
On 7/20/05, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Thanks,
Henri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
heh heh
On 7/20/05, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure it's easier for YOU to code :-)
>
> On 7/20/05, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 to #2
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On 7/20/05, Chris Nelson <cn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In this context anyways, I agree 1 is preferable to 2
> > > and 3. listener="listener:foo" just seems redundant
> > > and therefore violates DRY. Maybe it's different when
> > > we look at the larger context and legacy code, but
> > > here it seems quite obvious. My $.02
> > >
> > > --Chris
> > >
> > > --- Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
> > > > become easier to
> > > > discuss the binding prefixes.
> > > >
> > > > I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
> > > > get a consensus, we
> > > > can change things around.
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
> > > > binding prefixes
> > > > on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
> > > > defaults: literal:
> > > > for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
> > > > elsewhere (such as
> > > > annotations).
> > > >
> > > > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
> > > >
> > > > vs.
> > > >
> > > > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
> > > >
> > > > vs.
> > > >
> > > > <form jwcid="@Form"
> > > > listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
> > > > Either is better than
> > > > #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
> > > >
> > > > What are people finding now that they are
> > > > (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > > > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > > > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> > > >
> > > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________
> > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Get help with Spindle:
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
> > Announcement Feed:
> > http://www.jroller.com/rss/glongman?catname=/Announcements
> > Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Get help with Spindle:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
Announcement Feed:
http://www.jroller.com/rss/glongman?catname=/Announcements
Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Sure it's easier for YOU to code :-)
On 7/20/05, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to #2
>
> Geoff
>
> On 7/20/05, Chris Nelson <cn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In this context anyways, I agree 1 is preferable to 2
> > and 3. listener="listener:foo" just seems redundant
> > and therefore violates DRY. Maybe it's different when
> > we look at the larger context and legacy code, but
> > here it seems quite obvious. My $.02
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> > --- Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
> > > become easier to
> > > discuss the binding prefixes.
> > >
> > > I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
> > > get a consensus, we
> > > can change things around.
> > >
> > > I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
> > > binding prefixes
> > > on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
> > > defaults: literal:
> > > for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
> > > elsewhere (such as
> > > annotations).
> > >
> > > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
> > >
> > > vs.
> > >
> > > <form jwcid="@Form"
> > > listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
> > >
> > >
> > > I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
> > > Either is better than
> > > #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
> > >
> > > What are people finding now that they are
> > > (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> > >
> > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Get help with Spindle:
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
> Announcement Feed:
> http://www.jroller.com/rss/glongman?catname=/Announcements
> Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
+1 to #2
Geoff
On 7/20/05, Chris Nelson <cn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In this context anyways, I agree 1 is preferable to 2
> and 3. listener="listener:foo" just seems redundant
> and therefore violates DRY. Maybe it's different when
> we look at the larger context and legacy code, but
> here it seems quite obvious. My $.02
>
> --Chris
>
> --- Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
> > become easier to
> > discuss the binding prefixes.
> >
> > I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
> > get a consensus, we
> > can change things around.
> >
> > I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
> > binding prefixes
> > on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
> > defaults: literal:
> > for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
> > elsewhere (such as
> > annotations).
> >
> > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > <form jwcid="@Form"
> > listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
> >
> >
> > I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
> > Either is better than
> > #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
> >
> > What are people finding now that they are
> > (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> >
> > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Get help with Spindle:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user
Announcement Feed:
http://www.jroller.com/rss/glongman?catname=/Announcements
Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
Posted by Chris Nelson <cn...@yahoo.com>.
In this context anyways, I agree 1 is preferable to 2
and 3. listener="listener:foo" just seems redundant
and therefore violates DRY. Maybe it's different when
we look at the larger context and legacy code, but
here it seems quite obvious. My $.02
--Chris
--- Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's
> become easier to
> discuss the binding prefixes.
>
> I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can
> get a consensus, we
> can change things around.
>
> I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default
> binding prefixes
> on parameters, we still use a simpler system of
> defaults: literal:
> for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and
> elsewhere (such as
> annotations).
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
>
> vs.
>
> <form jwcid="@Form"
> listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
>
>
> I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2.
> Either is better than
> #3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
>
> What are people finding now that they are
> (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org