> David Geary Wrote:
> Perhaps, but assuming we want the same functionality that Tiles
> currently provides, such as XML tile definitions, tile inheritance,
> role-based tiles, controllers, etc., you're going to have to reinvent
> it unless you leverage Tiles somehow. You can have layout components,
> certainly, but that would just be the tip of the Tiles iceberg.
I would argue that the point of the xml subview component would be to provide
something that tiles could not. For another example, a dataTable that defines
first and last name. Notice the EL for the value attribute of the dataTable
#{managed-bean-name.persons}. The managed-bean-name will be replaced with the
id attribute of the subview component in the JSP this allows a definition to be
used against more than one managed bean/ view controller. In the next
displayElement definition, a couple columns are added to the personTable
component. The only way to do this with JSP and tiles is to create two JSP's
and use tiles to pull in a different fragment.
JSP Tag
<sh:xsubview id="personTable" elementId="personTable" />
<sh:xsubview id="employeeTable" elementId="employeeTable" />
XML view definition
<displayElement elementId="personTable" extends="dataTable">
<attributes>
<set name="value" useValueLateBinding="true"
value="#{managed-bean-name.persons}"/>
<set name="var" value="e"/>
<set name="rows" value="5"/>
<set name="first" value="1"/>
<set name="border" value="1"/>
<set name="cellpadding" value="3"/>
</attributes>
<element renderId="1" elementId="firstNameColumn"/>
<element renderId="2" elementId="lastNameColumn"/>
</displayElement>
<displayElement elementId="employeeTable" extends="personTable">
<element renderId="0" elementId="ssnColumn"/>
<element renderId="3" elementId="birthDateColumn"/>
</displayElement>
> I would advocate a layer of Shale components/renderers/variable
> resolvers/whatever that integrate with Tiles. Perhaps we could make
> layout components an option instead of layout JSP pages, as is the
> default for Tiles, although I bet most people would prefer the latter.
>
I don't see the two options being mutually exclusive.
Gary
