Howard Lewis Ship <hlship <at> gmail.com> writes: > I haven't gotten a lot of feedback ... Kent is very opposed to the > idea. Jesse and a few others are for it. I think it will be neat.
Here I'd like to explain why I am opposed to it. The supposed major benefit of using default binding prefix is DRY. Why DRY? If there is code duplication and for some reason I change this code, then I will have to change some other code. This is bad for maintenance. Now, let's return to the issue. Consider the following example: <input type="text" t:type="TextField" value="prop:name"/> The thinking behind default prefix is that there is linkage between TextField+value and prop. However, let's consider changing TextField to something else say PropertySelection, do we need to change prop? No. What if we need to change the parameter? There is seldom such need at all. What if we need to change from prop to say an imaginary ognl prefix, do we need to change TextField or value? No. As you can see above, there is absolutely no ripple effect of changes. Therefore, this code is not violating DRY. So, what is the real benefit of default prefix? The only benefit is saving some typing for the programmer writing the code and less text to read for the programmer reading the code. What is the cost? As Ron said, it is the extra step in the mental process of a programmer writing or reading the code: "What is the default prefix here?". Obviously, mental process is the bottle neck in programming, not finger or eye ball movements. -- 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]
