2007/1/26, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Right, but the point of the tag is to take the string representation of that value (no matter how that value is determined) and INSERT it onto the page. To me, it only makes sense to indicate that in the tag name.
I see, anyway if the tag remains with its current name (insertAttribute) we should document very clearly how to use it (and how not to use it :-) ).
The definition and template are definately specific types of entities and inserting them directly is not as dynamic as inserting an attribute. I agree with that. But in my estimation, the tag (also called an action), should be named by what it DOES not what it operates on.
but "insertAttribute" not only inserts an attribute, but, in some way, defines it; from my POV it is like creating a "setAttribute" method in a class.
I think I hear you saying that by naming the tag insertAtttribute, people would start to think of attributes in the same way they think of definitions and templates (named, more static), and you would prefer something like: <tiles:insertDefinition=""/> <tiles:insertTemplate=""/> <tiles:insert attribute=""/> Is that true? I'm not convinced and think this may be even more confusing.
Not exactly: <tiles:insertDefinition name=""/> <tiles:insertTemplate name=""/> Eventually: <tiles:insert name="" /> (definition OR template) <tiles:attribute name=""/> Using "tiles:attribute" I think that people will perceive the necessity to fill it when they insert a template or define a definitions, we (me and Greg) noticed that someone used the old <tiles:insert attribute="..." /> incorrectly, so I decided to differentiate completely its name. But maybe it's just me :-) Antonio
