Ville, you've echoed my thoughts exactly. If I don't hear an alternative view in the next 24 hours then I'll go ahead with the change.
Geoff On 22/01/2014, at 11:24 PM, Ville Virtanen wrote: > Hi, > > my 2c: use addRenderer. The driving decision for me is to support case, where > additional functionality is added later that uses > ajaxResponseRenderer.addRenderer(zone). That does not mix well with the > return value, and suddenly some part of ajax functionality is not working, > and the bug manifests only if you happen to hit the code path that uses the > return value. So, I see no point using the return value myself. (This however > was tested with one of the alphas, I don't know if you can mix and match > these days.) > > Ville Virtanen > Orient Import Oy > +358 45 111 4260 > > -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- > Lähettäjä: Geoff Callender [mailto:[email protected]] > Lähetetty: 22. tammikuuta 2014 7:42 > Vastaanottaja: Tapestry development > Aihe: Suitability of AjaxResponseRenderer > > Hey Howard (and anyone else who's qualified to answer), > > Before I mess up JumpStart by changing the examples that return > zone.getBody() to use ajaxResponseRenderer.addRenderer(zone) instead, is > there any downside to using the latter for single-zone updates? > > The reason I want to do this is to provide simple consistency between > single-zone and multi-zone update examples. But is there a downside? > > Regards, > > Geoff > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
