Greg Reddin ha scritto:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 2:46 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
But don't forget about the <tiles:getAsString> tag as well. It's
semantics are quite different from <tiles:insert>. How would it
be affected if we removed the GetTag?
I forgot a thing:
<tiles:getAsString> uses GetAttributeTag that does not extend
neither GetTag nor InsertTag. Anyway I still think also this tag
can be removed, and to use <tiles:insert type="string" />
I'm +1 for that as long as getAsString works the same as insert
type="string'.
Well not exactly... <tiles:getAsString> puts an attribute just like
calling .toString method.
Currently if an attribute is not a string and you specified
type="string" raises an exception. Should we change the behaviour of
InsertTag or stick with <tiles:getAsString>?
Hmm, I can't find any of my examples of using getAsString but I
thought I'd done it like this: <tile><tiles:getAsString
name="tilte"/></title> or something like that. I would be perfectly
fine if I could use <tiles:insert> in that way if getAsString goes
away. So I guess my answer to your question is yes :-)
Aarghh! I was wrong, <tiles:getAsString name="xxx" /> is not the same as
<tiles:insert name="xxx" type="string" /> because it should be an
attribute (type="attribute") of type "string": yuck two types!
At this point I think we should not remove <tiles:getAsString> but maybe
we can rename its class, GetAttributeTag, to GetAsStringTag. Is it ok
with you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
