On 9/27/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/27/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My opinion is just that this should be decided tag-by-tag, not
> globally. If it makes sense for a tag to have only one message,
> do that. If it makes sense to have two, do that. Class inheritance
> should not be used as the reason for doing this. (Especially
> so for the validatiors and converters in Trinidad that already
> extend from JSF spec validators and converters, where the
> base class is out of our hands.)
I think we all agree on this. My suggestion is that the "one tag"
should have an identical name whenever possible rather than many
similarly-named tags.
Yep, I think we are in agreement. :) Also, BTW, I like Gabrielle's
suggestion of how to do naming where you *do* have a need
for multiple messages - messageDetailXyz instead of xyzMessageDetail.
I see the ability to handle this in a superclass as an additional
perk, not as a supporting reason. I regret that I brought it up as I
think it's distracted us from the real discussion.
No worries. :)
-- Adam
