+1 to have ti not mandatory. Seeing how browsers wont fail I see no reason why does tapestry
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Lenny Primak <[email protected]>wrote: > Because the GWT parts talk to the Tapestry parts, so they have to be in > the same relative path. > Also, Tapestry has some nice things like forever-caching etc. that I like > to take advantage of > > On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Barry Books wrote: > > > I could go either way on this but I can see why you want to turn this > off. > > FYI I don't deploy my GWT client code thru Tapestry at all. Is there any > > reason why you do? > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:43:55 -0300, Lenny Primak < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> I can't. The whole tree gets reworked by the GWT compiler plugin at the > >>> end. Putting an extra all-or-nothing check for CSS just makes Tapestry > >>> harder to use with no real benefit on the other side. > >>> Also, this is clearly incompatible with Tapestry's previous behavior. > >>> > >> > >> I agree with Lenny about this. The normal behavior of CSS is to not fail > >> when some linked resource isn't found. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > >> > >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org< > [email protected]> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Sincerely *Boris Horvat*
