Re: RFC: Struts HTML Ajax-Aware Tags

[Frank W. Zammetti]

I think I'm leaning with you Allen.  I didn't like the idea of requiring 
something that is essentially outside the taglib at first, but as I 
think about it more I think it just makes sense.  Besides, I guess one 
could argue that the extra config file is already something required 
outside the taglib anyway :)

--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
Fogleson, Allen wrote:
Personally I don't see where putting the code inline or forcing the use
of a .js file through a switch really brings value. If the switch bought
some value, say advanced features or something then it might make sense.
Power users could turn on the switch and access these wonderful extra
features that are not used normally, but the PU might want to use. 

Personally I would say force the use of the file from the get go.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:07 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: RFC: Struts HTML Ajax-Aware Tags

I think the other benefit, although a more subjective one, is that a big
long string of Javascript inline in a tag is kind of ugly.  I've 
certainly done it many times, as I'm sure others have, so it isn't the 
end of the world, it's just aesthetically not very pleasing to me.

I like your idea about being able to switch though (I always like more 
flexibility in anything)... I'm not sure I'm convinced it isn't better 
to just make the include required from the get-go, but a switch is 
certainly not a bad option.  Not a big deal to implement, I just wonder 
if the benefit isn't a little dubious (i.e., there is probably more to 
be said for not putting the code inline, so why not make it only work 
that way?)

Worth some others' input in any case I think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]