On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:14:30 -0200, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote:
If that is what's going to be implemented that would suffice.
That's my humble proposal, which is basically what
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
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
