Any other ideas/opinions on this?
musachy
On 6/16/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have to options:
1. use "id" in "set", and keep the other tags as they are (using "id"),
with its side effects (jspx)
2. leave set as it is (using name), and deprecate "id" on the other tags
and use "name" instead ("bean" would be an special case)
right? I'd say 2 would be better but it would take a lot of deprecation
musachy
On 6/16/07, Martin Cooper < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 6/14/07, David Durham, Jr. < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Also:
> > >
> > > action,
> > > date
> > > text
> >
> > Still a problem, IMO, because if you're someone that writes .jspx
> > documents, you can only use a tag that uses id + value stack key
> > combination in, at most, one place within a document, and still have a
>
> > valid jspx. Maybe this is a minor issue, though, and shouldn't
> > change. Has anyone else even noticed it? The only reason it occurred
> > to me is that there's the presence of styleId on some tags.
>
>
> I don't think this is minor. As you point out, in Struts 1 we were very
> careful about where we used 'id' because of the special semantic in XML.
> We
> need to be equally careful in Struts 2, so that we don't suddenly
> invalidate
> whole classes of use cases (such as JSPX).
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> -Dave
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
