Well, as there are no objections we'll go with "var", here is the jira
ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2027
musachy
On 6/28/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a vote?
I tend to feel that we're a bit too vote-happy around here, so I'd prefer
to
see us reach consensus instead, if we can.
So far, I haven't heard anyone voice objections to 'var', so I'd suggest
that unless we do hear objections within, say, a couple of days, we just
run
with that.
--
Martin Cooper
musachy
>
> On 6/28/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/27/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I have been very absentee from Struts discussions, but I took
a
> > > minute to review this one...
> > >
> > > Acknowledging that consistency (between s:set, s:url, s:bean, etc)
is
> > good
> > > but that "id" has specific semantics for HTML markup, what about
using
> > > "var"
> > > for the tags which put a value into a scope, in sympathy with the
JSTL
> > > syntax?
> >
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > Joe
> > >
> > > On 6/27/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe Germuska
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com
> > >
> > > "I felt so good I told the leader how to follow."
> > > -- Sly Stone
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
