Ron Piterman <rpiterman <at> gmx.net> writes:
> yes, it follows the template syntax - for me, in java, this syntax feels
> strange.
>
> If you look at the Java persistance API annoations vs. xml its all full
> of such "subannotations". I would favour aligning to it, instead of
> using an "own" syntax, also if its 1:1 with the template syntax -
>
> I Guess its a "feeling" for what one finds better - would really
> interest me what others think about it...
I find the parameters={"n1=v1", "n2=prefix:v2"} syntax better than
explicit sub-annotations as it is easier to read and write. This is a
good example of the "little language" design pattern
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage). Some other excellent examples
of this pattern is XPath, regular expression, printf, SQL. They're all
extremely powerful and succinct.
In addition there is little compile-time checking advantage with sub-
annotations. For example, it won't find typos in the parameter name,
in the prefix or in the value expression.
--
Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
