[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-766?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jesse Kuhnert closed TAPESTRY-766.
----------------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
I like the idea but don't think it's entirely necessary anymore since ognl
statements get compiled into native byte code. Maybe an ElseIf component would
make sense though.
> Switch/Case (pseudo) component pair
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: TAPESTRY-766
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-766
> Project: Tapestry
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Framework
> Affects Versions: 3.0.5
> Reporter: Patrick Casey
> Fix For: 4.2
>
> Attachments: Case.java, Case.jwc, Switch.java, Switch.jwc
>
>
> The Problem:
>
> Rendering a page with a large number of conditionally displayed sub-sections
> inside of tapestry produces some remarkable ugly looking code; more to the
> point it tends to gun up your performance because the system is evaluating
> each and every one of your conditions, even if you, as is quite common, want
> one and only one section to render.
>
> e.g.
>
> <span jwcid="@Conditional" condition="ognl:today == [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> Welcome to work. Hope your weekend was good.
> </span>
> <span jwcid="@Conditional" condition="ognl:today == [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> Welcome back.
> </span>
> <span jwcid="@Conditional" condition="ognl:today == [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> Only three more days to go!
> </span>
> ...
>
> My recent dive into the bowels of ognl with a profiler (see my previous post
> on the subject) actually inspired me to set about minimizing the number of
> ognl calls my applications have to make. So, this was my attempt to
> dramatically trim down the number of @Conditionals I have to use.
>
> The Solution:
>
> I've implemented (and attached) a Tapestry pseudo switch ... case component
> pair. To use it, set up an outer switch component, and nest as many case
> components within it as you want e.g.
>
> <span jwcid="@Switch" switchOn="ognl:today">
> <span jwcid="@Case" token="ognl:@[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> Welcome to work. Hope your weekend was good.
> </span>
> <span jwcid="@Case" token="ognl:@[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> Welcome back.
> </span>
> <span jwcid="@Case" token="ognl:@[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
> Only three more days to go!
> </span>
> </span>
>
> Limitations:
>
> 1) You can't put anything inside the switch statement *except* case
> statement. Anything between the start of the @Switch span and the end of the
> @Switch span which isn't an @Case, gets ignored completely.
> 2) The switch statement switches on a string (internally it's just a
> hashmap). So if you want to switch on something else, convert it to a string
> before you pass it in.
> 3) I haven't (yet at least) figured out how to support multiple cases
> resolving into the same execution block. So if you want Tuesday, Wednesday,
> and Thursday all to say "The middle of the week sucks", you'll need to have
> three case blocks, one for each day L. Maybe somebody smarter than I can sort
> out how to stack them.
>
> Performance Notes:
>
> 1) Yes, it is faster than either @Conditionals or
> @contrib:Choose. Profiled render time for 5 renders of one of my more complex
> forms was 3.520 seconds for @Choose, 3.323 seconds for @Conditional and 2.523
> seconds for @Switch. The speed comes from reducing the number of (hugely)
> expensive ognl calls it has to make, largely by reducing the size of the
> expressions e.g. "ognl:today == [EMAIL PROTECTED]" becomes "ognl: @[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]", halving the number of evaluation cycles. Curiously,
> contrib:Choose is actually marginally slower according to my profiling than
> just brute force @Conditionals. I've chalked it up as random variance in my
> profiling for the moment, but its still a head scratcher.
> 2) I have to evaluate each @Case token to determine if it's
> a match for the switch, so if you can use a *static* @Case statement, you'll,
> again, save yourself an ognl call thus token="4" is dramatically faster than
> token="ognl:getFour()". Sometimes that's not possible, of course, so I still
> support the ognl.
>
> General Case Caveot:
>
> As usual, whenever I'm mucking around in the bowels of Tapestry, I'm
> reminding that I don't think the same way Howard does; so there's a small but
> very real chance that I built this whole component based on some deeply
> flawed and fundamentally dangerous assumptions about the framework. With that
> said though, it *does* work for me, and I'm planning on rolling it out as
> part of the current project I'm working on.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
