Well the way I see it is <lift:insert at=""> .. So the semantic would always be insert-at .. such as "insert this markup at this bind position"... which in essence is an insert operation that makes a lot of sense - to me at least.
On the other hand "<lift:embed>" embeds a template into *this* position so there is no *at* semantic. So the way I see it the two don't step on each other toes. Br's, Marius On Aug 20, 4:34 pm, Timothy Perrett <[email protected]> wrote: > Can I just make an objection to calling it "insert" - IMO, that's a conflict > with the language semantic of "embed" - I agree with-param is not ideal, but > im not sure that "insert" is ideal either. I also agree with marius, what > would you suggest to resolve this issue? > > I tried to post yesterday but it looks like my mail didn't make it into the > group. > > Cheers, Tim > > On 20/08/2009 14:15, "marius d." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I will add <lift:insert> support .. personally I don't feel very > > comfortable allowing builtin snippets to have different names. One > > case I'm thinking of that people may change them, post issues on the > > list and we'd have o idea what the user really uses which may lead to > > longer discussions and support. I've learned my lesson with over- > > customization of things; it can bring real pains sometimes. > > > Just my 2 cents ... > > > Br's, > > Marius > > > On Aug 20, 4:09 pm, inca <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, David, that's wonderful idea, too. Should eliminate many > >> headaches. > > >> On 20 авг, 01:59, David Pollak <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:46 AM, marius d. <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> This is a decision that needs consensus ... and David's agreement. > > >>> I'm cool with it. > > >>> It might also be worth thinking about creating some "alias" library so > >>> folks > >>> could change the default names of Lift's snippets. Or maybe that's just a > >>> bad idea. > > >>>> 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. > > >>> -- > >>> Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > >>> Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > >>> Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp > >>> Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
