Ok .. I committed <lift:bind-at name=""/>. Personally I like it better then insert because it contains a good hint by its very name that it is related with <lift:bind>.
Of course if you hate it it can be easily changed :) ... but IMHO it doesn't worth having large discussions on such things. Br's, Marius On Aug 20, 7:17 pm, "marius d." <[email protected]> wrote: > I love <lift:bind-to name=""> or <lift:bind-at name=""> ... > > Br's, > Marius > > On Aug 20, 5:43 pm, David Pollak <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > How about <lift:bind-to name="..."/> which works with <lift:bind .../> > > I'm also open to non-English words that mean the same (as long as they are > > ASCII). > > > 2009/8/20 marius d. <[email protected]> > > > > 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 > > > -- > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
