+1

I think naftoli's suggestion is a good one and we should go with
something that carries a better semantic.

Cheers, Tim

On Sep 23, 11:59 am, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could that be changed to lift:concurrent or lift:par etc. (see email on 
> scala-user from Marting Odersky mentioned the future use of 'seq' and 'par' 
> in concurrent collections)?
> Why use a different prefix than everything else built in to lift? And 'lazy' 
> is arguably not what's happening.
> Thanks.
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Jeppe Nejsum Madsen<je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote:
> David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I've added code (it's in review board right now) that will automatically
> > farm any snippet with the "do:lazy='true'" attribute set.
>
> > So, <lift:foo/> will execute the foo snippet inline.
>
> > <lift:foo do:lazy="true"/> will execute the foo snippet in parallel and join
> > the result back to page before its rendered.
>
> Very nice! In what context is the snippet executed? I assume that
> all timeout handling, errors etc should be handled by the snippet just
> as in the non-lazy fashion?
>
> /Jeppe
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to