2007/1/26, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 1/26/07, Antonio Petrelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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 :-)
I thought I was with you, but now I'm not so sure.
If you're saying "let's rename <tiles:insertAttribute> to <tiles:insert>", I
can go with that. That's what I was looking for in the first place. I
strongly feel that a JSP should not need to know whether the attribute value
it is using is a JSP or a Tiles Definition; there should be complete
transparency between the two.
I never wrote that! <tiles:insert> will insert a definition or a
template, not an attribute!
But then what is your vision for <tiles:attribute name="" /> What will that
tag do?
Define and insert an attribute, that it is what exactly does.
I think having verbs in the tag names (like "put" and "insert") is
really helpful for clarification. AttributeTag was the only one whose name
didn't begin with a verb, and I think one way or another, we shouldn't
revert to having one oddball unless there's a really compelling reason for
it.
<tiles:defineAndInsertAttribute> seems too long to me... It's not
important, let's stick with insertAttribute :-)
Antonio
