You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net> on 2009/08/14 16:57:09 UTC
T5.1 t:body question
Hi all, I know I'm still learning, but I'm a bit puzzled as to why:
<t:body/>
works just fine, but:
<span t:type="body"/>
and
<span t:type="Body"/>
both error out with:
org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.internal.util.TapestryException
Unable to resolve 'body' to a component class name. Available
component types: ActionLink, AddRowLink, AjaxFormLoop, Any,
BeanDisplay, BeanEditForm, BeanEditor, Checkbox, DateField, Delegate,
Errors, EventLink, ExceptionDisplay, Form, FormFragment, FormInjector,
Grid, GridCell, GridColumns, GridPager, GridRows, Hidden, If, Label,
Layout, LinkSubmit, Loop, Output, OutputRaw, PageLink, Palette,
PasswordField, ProgressiveDisplay, PropertyDisplay, PropertyEditor,
Radio, RadioGroup, RemoveRowLink, RenderObject, Select, Submit,
SubmitNotifier, TextArea, TextField, TextOutput, Unless, Zone.
I'm assuming t:body isn't really a component, but a different form of
magic. Are there other "components" that aren't really components and
should t:body also support invisible instrumentation, too?
Thanks again!
mrg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: T5.1 t:body question
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
The question was: do we introduce one XML namespace for Tapestry
components and a second one for the (finite set) of Tapestry
directives? I chose to have a single namespace. This could be changed
in the future to have a distinct XML namespace for components and a
separate one for directives. The XML namespace URI would be used to
maintain backwards compatibility.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Michael Gentry<mg...@masslight.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Thiago H. de Paula
> Figueiredo<th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Em Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:57:09 -0300, Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>
>> escreveu:
>> Take a look at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/guide/templates.html,
>> section "Tapestry Elements".
>
> I had seen that section before, but it wasn't really clear (to me,
> anyway -- a T5.1 newbie who has also used T4) that it was really
> different.
>
>>> and should t:body also support invisible instrumentation, too?
>>
>> Using t:type for both components and Tapestry-specific tags (<t:body>, etc)
>> would cause a lot of confusion and would require some level rewriting of the
>> template parser. Even using other attribute would require this rewriting, so
>> I don't know if it's worth the hassle.
>
> It may not be worth the hassle, but given that t:body (not a
> component) looks pretty much like t:if, t:form, t:loop, t:textfield,
> etc. (components), I think it is a bit confusing. It looks like a
> duck (component), but doesn't quack. Also, Body was a real component
> in T4, so that might add to the confusion for anyone moving on to T5.
>
> Thanks again Thiago!
>
> mrg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: T5.1 t:body question
Posted by Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Thiago H. de Paula
Figueiredo<th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:57:09 -0300, Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>
> escreveu:
> Take a look at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/guide/templates.html,
> section "Tapestry Elements".
I had seen that section before, but it wasn't really clear (to me,
anyway -- a T5.1 newbie who has also used T4) that it was really
different.
>> and should t:body also support invisible instrumentation, too?
>
> Using t:type for both components and Tapestry-specific tags (<t:body>, etc)
> would cause a lot of confusion and would require some level rewriting of the
> template parser. Even using other attribute would require this rewriting, so
> I don't know if it's worth the hassle.
It may not be worth the hassle, but given that t:body (not a
component) looks pretty much like t:if, t:form, t:loop, t:textfield,
etc. (components), I think it is a bit confusing. It looks like a
duck (component), but doesn't quack. Also, Body was a real component
in T4, so that might add to the confusion for anyone moving on to T5.
Thanks again Thiago!
mrg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: T5.1 t:body question
Posted by "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo" <th...@gmail.com>.
Em Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:57:09 -0300, Michael Gentry <mg...@masslight.net>
escreveu:
> I'm assuming t:body isn't really a component, but a different form of
> magic.
<t:body/> is not a component.
> Are there other "components" that aren't really components
Take a look at
http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/guide/templates.html, section
"Tapestry Elements".
> and should t:body also support invisible instrumentation, too?
Using t:type for both components and Tapestry-specific tags (<t:body>,
etc) would cause a lot of confusion and would require some level rewriting
of the template parser. Even using other attribute would require this
rewriting, so I don't know if it's worth the hassle.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor
http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org