You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Norbert Sándor <de...@freemail.hu> on 2005/06/22 20:50:56 UTC
remove default-binding...
Hello,
I start this thread again :)
I started to use Tapestry 4.0 alpha and I'm very confused with default bindings.
When I create a component myself, it seems to be a simple solution to always use a binding prefix or use the default OGNL binding (don't specify a default binding).
But what about components produced by others, heavily using this feature? These will be difficult to read and use. If I see a binding without a prefix, I don't know if it's an OGNL binding or something else. So I should check the parameter's definition, etc.
I think that there should be much simplier rules, to improve the readability of the component specifications: if there is no binding prefix then it is always OGNL. If the binding is something else then it should be always explicitly defined. This means that there is no need for default-binding.
By using default-binding, the definition of the binding falls apart to two parts in two separate files!
Don't give a feature to developers which may corrupt the clean and easy to understand structure of the specs!
Someone recommended that it should be configurable. I don't see how this could work with component libraries using different configs.
On the other hand such an option would mean that there is no standard for authoring component specifications.
If default-binding stays in the final Tapestry 4.0 then the only way to create well readable specs is to always include the prefix in all bindings.
Br,
Norbi
Re: remove default-binding...
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
yup
On 6/24/05, Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/05, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> > Norbi - it's just that we've been around and around about it. I
> > think during the beta period more people will try out Tapestry 4 and
> > we can hammer this one out. I'm -0 on that feature now (meaning I'm
> > against it, but not so much that I'm going to veto it if others want
> > it).
>
> What are the pros of that feature? Only save typing the prefix?
>
> Henri.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: remove default-binding...
Posted by Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com>.
On 6/23/05, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Norbi - it's just that we've been around and around about it. I
> think during the beta period more people will try out Tapestry 4 and
> we can hammer this one out. I'm -0 on that feature now (meaning I'm
> against it, but not so much that I'm going to veto it if others want
> it).
What are the pros of that feature? Only save typing the prefix?
Henri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: remove default-binding...
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Norbi - it's just that we've been around and around about it. I
think during the beta period more people will try out Tapestry 4 and
we can hammer this one out. I'm -0 on that feature now (meaning I'm
against it, but not so much that I'm going to veto it if others want
it).
Erik
On Jun 23, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Norbert Sándor wrote:
> It seems that my comments didn't attracted much attention.
> This probably means that most people are satesfied with the default-
> binding feature and don't find it confusing.
>
> Br,
> Norbi
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norbert Sándor"
> <de...@freemail.hu>
> To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:50 PM
> Subject: remove default-binding...
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I start this thread again :)
>
> I started to use Tapestry 4.0 alpha and I'm very confused with
> default bindings.
>
> When I create a component myself, it seems to be a simple solution
> to always use a binding prefix or use the default OGNL binding
> (don't specify a default binding).
> But what about components produced by others, heavily using this
> feature? These will be difficult to read and use. If I see a
> binding without a prefix, I don't know if it's an OGNL binding or
> something else. So I should check the parameter's definition, etc.
>
> I think that there should be much simplier rules, to improve the
> readability of the component specifications: if there is no binding
> prefix then it is always OGNL. If the binding is something else
> then it should be always explicitly defined. This means that there
> is no need for default-binding.
> By using default-binding, the definition of the binding falls apart
> to two parts in two separate files!
> Don't give a feature to developers which may corrupt the clean and
> easy to understand structure of the specs!
>
> Someone recommended that it should be configurable. I don't see how
> this could work with component libraries using different configs.
> On the other hand such an option would mean that there is no
> standard for authoring component specifications.
>
> If default-binding stays in the final Tapestry 4.0 then the only
> way to create well readable specs is to always include the prefix
> in all bindings.
>
> Br,
> Norbi
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: remove default-binding...
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@freemail.hu>.
It seems that my comments didn't attracted much attention.
This probably means that most people are satesfied with the default-binding
feature and don't find it confusing.
Br,
Norbi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norbert Sándor" <de...@freemail.hu>
To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:50 PM
Subject: remove default-binding...
Hello,
I start this thread again :)
I started to use Tapestry 4.0 alpha and I'm very confused with default
bindings.
When I create a component myself, it seems to be a simple solution to always
use a binding prefix or use the default OGNL binding (don't specify a
default binding).
But what about components produced by others, heavily using this feature?
These will be difficult to read and use. If I see a binding without a
prefix, I don't know if it's an OGNL binding or something else. So I should
check the parameter's definition, etc.
I think that there should be much simplier rules, to improve the readability
of the component specifications: if there is no binding prefix then it is
always OGNL. If the binding is something else then it should be always
explicitly defined. This means that there is no need for default-binding.
By using default-binding, the definition of the binding falls apart to two
parts in two separate files!
Don't give a feature to developers which may corrupt the clean and easy to
understand structure of the specs!
Someone recommended that it should be configurable. I don't see how this
could work with component libraries using different configs.
On the other hand such an option would mean that there is no standard for
authoring component specifications.
If default-binding stays in the final Tapestry 4.0 then the only way to
create well readable specs is to always include the prefix in all bindings.
Br,
Norbi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: remove default-binding...
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I'm still of the opinion that default bindings would cause more
problems than it solves.
Geoff
On 6/22/05, Norbert Sándor <de...@freemail.hu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I start this thread again :)
>
> I started to use Tapestry 4.0 alpha and I'm very confused with default bindings.
>
> When I create a component myself, it seems to be a simple solution to always use a binding prefix or use the default OGNL binding (don't specify a default binding).
> But what about components produced by others, heavily using this feature? These will be difficult to read and use. If I see a binding without a prefix, I don't know if it's an OGNL binding or something else. So I should check the parameter's definition, etc.
>
> I think that there should be much simplier rules, to improve the readability of the component specifications: if there is no binding prefix then it is always OGNL. If the binding is something else then it should be always explicitly defined. This means that there is no need for default-binding.
> By using default-binding, the definition of the binding falls apart to two parts in two separate files!
> Don't give a feature to developers which may corrupt the clean and easy to understand structure of the specs!
>
> Someone recommended that it should be configurable. I don't see how this could work with component libraries using different configs.
> On the other hand such an option would mean that there is no standard for authoring component specifications.
>
> If default-binding stays in the final Tapestry 4.0 then the only way to create well readable specs is to always include the prefix in all bindings.
>
> Br,
> Norbi
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org