Seems this can be done by introducing a If mixin. On 1/16/07, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd vote for this one <a t:id="deleteLink" t:renderif="condition">...</a> it sounds more usefull and cleaner to me Davor Hrg On 1/16/07, Nick Westgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After rereading the posts on this, my previous post seems redundant. > Jesse's Java nesting example is sufficient to explain why the nesting > feels unnatural. (Not to diminish Howard's amazing ability to re-invent!) > > Kent's "then" parameter is a great idea, but the nesting seems excessive. > I still think Tapestry already had this one right, yet again. ;-) > > BUT ... speaking of nesting, I was reminded of a thought I've had on > occasion when adding conditionals into a template. It would be great > if all components had a conditional attribute - no need to nest more. > > eg. > <a t:id="deleteLink">...</a> > -> > <a t:id="deleteLink" t:renderif="condition">...</a> > > Obviously this is only useful in certain situations, but for complex > templates the less unnecessary nesting of tags the better. > > Just thought I'd bring this up while the pot's on the stove. > Anyone else ever wish for this, or think it might be practical? > > Cheers, > Nick. > > > Nick Westgate wrote: > > Jesse's example looks better when you need to add interceding content. > > The nesting of the else parameter impedes a common use case for else, > > and if there's no Else component, we end up 'negatively' violating DRY: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
