wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is when
people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.

Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do just
as well as a @Submit with listener=?

I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of listener="" on
these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use action
under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
"consistent" naming convention.

Thoughts?

-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

On 7/23/06, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't "listener" be more consistent, since that's what DirectLink uses?
>
> > One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is
> when
> > people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
> >
> > Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
> > just
> > as well as a @Submit with listener=?
> >
> > I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of listener=""
> on
> > these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use
> action
> > under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
> > "consistent" naming convention.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Jesse Kuhnert
> > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >
> > Open source based consulting work centered around
> > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >
>
>
> James Carman, President
> Carman Consulting, Inc.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>]

Wouldn't "listener" be more consistent, since that's what DirectLink uses?

> One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is when
> people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
>
> Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
> just
> as well as a @Submit with listener=?
>
> I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of listener="" on
> these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use action
> under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
> "consistent" naming convention.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>


James Carman, President
Carman Consulting, Inc.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

Already done :)

On 7/24/06, Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/22/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is
> when
> > people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
> >
> > Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
> > just
> > as well as a @Submit with listener=?
> >
> > I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of listener=""
> on
> > these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use
> action
> > under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
> > "consistent" naming convention.
>
>
> Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the listener. I
> don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.
>
> Henri.
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>]

I'm glad I brought it up! Breaking For is enough of a reason to revert these
changes for me.

On 7/24/06, Mind Bridge <mi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the
> listener. I
> > don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.
>
> I would suggest checking out the list archives where this issue has been
> discussed multiple times.
> Specifically, the current 'action' simply would not work within a cycle
> (e.g. Submit within a For).
>
> In addition, there are 3 types of developers:
>
> 1) Developers who have used extensively Tapestry 3 or earlier.
> 'listener' in T3 was not delayed, and the current approach preserves
> this property ('action' is delayed, instead). This means that code
> written earlier would work now as well (in many cases it would not work
> if 'action' is renamed as 'listener' instead)
>
> 2) Developers who have started using Tapestry extensively around version 4
> For those, 'listener' seems more logical than 'action', as many of the
> examples in the documentation that they have seen still used 'listener'.
>
> 3) Developers who will start using Tapestry in the future
> For those, 'action' is actually more logical, since this is the name
> used in many other systems as well. In addition, if all of the examples
> in the documentation use 'action', rather than 'listener', then the
> question for renaming will simply not stand in this group.
>
> In short, a renaming would only benefit group 2 at the cost of harming
> groups 1 and 3.
> It seems to me that the issue needs to be resolved via fixes in the
> documentation (if actually needed), rather than parameter renaming.
>
>
> Henri Dupre wrote:
> > On 7/22/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is
> >> when
> >> people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
> >>
> >> Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
> >> just
> >> as well as a @Submit with listener=?
> >>
> >> I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of
> >> listener="" on
> >> these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use
> >> action
> >> under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
> >> "consistent" naming convention.
> >
> >
> > Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the
> > listener. I
> > don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.
> >
> > Henri.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer

Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Mind Bridge <mi...@yahoo.com>]

 > Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the 
listener. I
 > don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.

I would suggest checking out the list archives where this issue has been 
discussed multiple times.
Specifically, the current 'action' simply would not work within a cycle 
(e.g. Submit within a For).

In addition, there are 3 types of developers:

1) Developers who have used extensively Tapestry 3 or earlier.
'listener' in T3 was not delayed, and the current approach preserves 
this property ('action' is delayed, instead). This means that code 
written earlier would work now as well (in many cases it would not work 
if 'action' is renamed as 'listener' instead)

2) Developers who have started using Tapestry extensively around version 4
For those, 'listener' seems more logical than 'action', as many of the 
examples in the documentation that they have seen still used 'listener'.

3) Developers who will start using Tapestry in the future
For those, 'action' is actually more logical, since this is the name 
used in many other systems as well. In addition, if all of the examples 
in the documentation use 'action', rather than 'listener', then the 
question for renaming will simply not stand in this group.

In short, a renaming would only benefit group 2 at the cost of harming 
groups 1 and 3.
It seems to me that the issue needs to be resolved via fixes in the 
documentation (if actually needed), rather than parameter renaming.


Henri Dupre wrote:
> On 7/22/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is 
>> when
>> people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
>>
>> Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
>> just
>> as well as a @Submit with listener=?
>>
>> I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of 
>> listener="" on
>> these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use 
>> action
>> under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
>> "consistent" naming convention.
>
>
> Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the 
> listener. I
> don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.
>
> Henri.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org

Re: wrt Submit listeners / actions

[Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com>]

On 7/22/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of the largest quircks that I've seen come up again and again is when
> people use listener= on their submit buttons vs action=.
>
> Can there really be that many scenerios where a DirectLink wouldn't do
> just
> as well as a @Submit with listener=?
>
> I'd like to sneakily just drop out the current behaviour of listener="" on
> these submits(Submit/LinkSubmit/ImageSubmit) and make them all use action
> under the covers, deprecating action="" in favor of the other more
> "consistent" naming convention.


Great idea... I find the action more intuitive to use than the listener. I
don't know any case where I would need a listener instead of an action.

Henri.