This is a decision that needs consensus ... and David's agreement. Personally I agree with it but others may not.
Br's, Marius On Aug 19, 12:41 pm, inca <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not just introduce the new tag, leaving the former alone (possibly > deprecated in next major releases)? > > On 19 авг, 12:07, "marius d." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes we tried to deprecate it but later on we un-derprecate it :) > > > So you can use <lift:with-param> safely. Purely for naming perspective > > <lift:insert> seems to me more intuitive than <lift:with-param> ... > > I'm not sure if this is a strong enough motivation to change the name > > hence inducing a breaking change. > > > Br's, > > Marius > > > On Aug 19, 10:55 am, inca <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As suggested > > > inhttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb/browse_thread/thread/d664b712d... > > > by Mr. Marius D., I should use lift:with-param in order to insert > > > content into multiple bind points of template. But recently I read > > > that this tag is deprecated. What alternatives are available? > > > P.S. I would propose <lift:insert at="bindPointName"> tag for this > > > purpose. And the contents of <lift:bind name="bindPointName"> tag > > > should be assumed as default if none <lift:insert ...> tag overrides > > > it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
