On Jul 18, 2014 8:10 PM, "Garret Wilson" <gar...@globalmentor.com> wrote: > > I wasn't trying to "validate" or "restrict" HTML tag names---I just thought it helpful to provide some constants for the HTML tags we use all the time, so that some programmer (e.g. me) doesn't make a typo.
do you suggest to add constants only for the few HTML tags used in Wicket (like 'a', 'button', 'link') ? this will lead to a wave of questions on the lists why 'fieldset' is not there too, for example my point is that we don't want to maintain a huge list of tag names which are not even used by Wicket itself and what about "<em>" ? I'd hate to have to write/read something like: "<"+HTMLElement.EM+">" > > Do you see any value in adding a boolean Tag.hasName(String) method that handles the equalsIgnoreCase()? I don't even trust myself to how to make sure that XML producing pages won't use this method ? always remember to do the correct equals() on the tags. I'm an advocate for helper methods that clarify semantics of what's being done, and also protect the programmer from making mistakes. > > I hope you don't mind my making these suggestions, based upon my decades of experience of trying to protect my code from me. ;) > > Garret > > > On 7/17/2014 7:48 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> >> Not a Java or Wicket article, but interesting nonetheless: >> http://inessential.com/2014/07/14/string_constants >> >> I'm not a big fan of putting everything in constants in a central >> location. We won't be changing an anchor tag from a to anchor across >> all code in Wicket, ever. >> >> There has to be a benefit to making a constant (string). For example, >> what is more clear: >> >> public class SomeAbstractLink { >> protected void checkTag(Tag t) { >> assert t.getName().equals(HtmlTags.ANCHOR); >> } >> } >> >> or >> >> public class SomeAbstractLink { >> protected void checkTag(Tag t) { >> assert t.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("a"); >> } >> } >> >> or possibly: >> >> public class SomeAbstractLink { >> protected void checkTag(Tag t) { >> TagAsserts.tagNameValid(t, "a"); >> } >> } >> >> Martijn >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Garret Wilson <gar...@globalmentor.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, all. I notice that throughout the code HTML element and attribute names >>> are hard-coded. Does Wicket have a list of HTML name and attribute constants >>> that we could reference? I would find that a lot safer, and perhaps even >>> more readable. Not only that, it would allow us to quickly find all the >>> places that use the e.g. HTML.Element.EM element. >>> >>> Secondly, in the same vein, I see lots of code like this: >>> >>> if(tag.getName().equalsIgnoreCase("a"))... >>> >>> That's also tedious and error-prone---I can't trust myself not to forget to >>> do a case-insensitive comparison. Perhaps there could be a >>> ComponentTag.hasName() method that does this for me? So the above would be: >>> >>> if(tag.hasName(HTML.Element.EM))... >>> >>> On the other hand, perhaps Wicket is wanting to support other contexts such >>> as general XML, in which case case-sensitive matching is necessary. (I would >>> imagine that the entire codebase plays loosely with whether or not matching >>> is case-sensitive, though. More research is necessary on my part.) >>> >>> What do you think at least about having HTML element/attribute constants? >>> That my be an area I can contribute to in the short term. >>> >>> Garret >> >> >> >
