If that is what's going to be implemented that would suffice. Uli
On 07.02.2013 12:36, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 06:58:28 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > >> Can we please document the technical changes? > > What about this, taken from an e-mail from Steve Eyron describing his > solution for the problem: > > "I added a TransformWorker which checks if the page has a > 'model.handlesEvent(EventConstants.ACTIVATE)', if it does then I assume the > context is being handled > and I leave it alone." It's implied from the surrounding conversation that > when there's context and > the page doesn't have a method handling the 'activate' method, a 404 error is > raised. This worker > would be added after the mixin one. > > This proposal is backward-compatible, doesn't break existing code, is simple > to document and > understand and simple to implement (no existing code changes except for > contributing the worker). It > doesn't cover all scenarios, but at least covers a good part of them. For > more specific scenarios, > we could define page class annotations and their workers, something I think > wouldn't need a vote, as > it doesn't change existing behaviors. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
