Marius, you make a fair point. In that case, im down with "insert at='sdf'".
I am right to think this will directly *replace* with-param? Cheers, Tim On 20/08/2009 14:53, "marius d." <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
