Why not just introduce the new tag, leaving the former alone (possibly deprecated in next major releases)?
On 19 авг, 12:07, "marius d." <marius.dan...@gmail.com> 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 <incarn...@whiteants.net> 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 liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
