Sorry, thinking again on it, I have several constraints for this project I'm working on: 1. I have to work on 3.0.x branch without modifications; 2. I have to use Java 6 3. Adding code to a 3.1 or 4.0 version of Tiles has no real benefit for me at this time. 4. What I wanted to do does not give benefit for the community itself.
So I will work on a private project that holds a special renderer and special tags. Once it is done, I will see if I can donate the code, for you to take "inspiration" to do the right job. Sorry for the noise Antonio 2016-06-02 14:23 GMT+02:00 mck <m...@apache.org>: > > > Moreover, since I am emeritus and I don't know if I will contribute much, > > what is the best thing to do for me? Should I fork a project in GitHub or > > resurrect my account for Tiles? > > Great to hear from you again Antonio! Hope all is well. > I think we'd all be happy to see you resurrect your account, regardless > of how much you contribute. > > > > I think the best thing is to create a > > "body renderer" that acts like any other renderer. Since the > > Renderer.render wants a string as a first parameter, I think that a map: > > "generated name" -> body should be created in request scope. > > > Do we break compatibility by adding Renderer.render(Object, Request) ? > Is that a possibility forward? > > (We do if tiles-request-api is considered an spi, which it actually is. > This can be solved by introducing it as a default method in the > interface. That would require Java8, but maybe it's time for that.) > > Mick. >
