If you like the idea of having them all as attributes but don't like the idea 
of using a single attribute ('xx:eager_eval="true" xx:parallel="true"' rather 
than 'xx:eval="eager parallel"' as I suggested, where xx is the prefix to be 
chosen) then maybe the prefix should be 'eval'.

As far as "ajax evaluation" I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you show me 
what you're thinking?
If I have a snippet
<lift:MySnippet />
what would be the syntax to have it inserted via ajax?

-------------------------------------
Ross Mellgren<dri...@gmail.com> wrote:

My 2 cents,

I'm not sure I'm a fan of do: namespace, though I agree it would be  
nice to have a common one. Maybe snippet:parallel, snippet:eager_eval?

-Ross

On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:46 PM, David Pollak wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "as a normal snippet"?
>
> The parallel snippet processing is implemented deep inside  
> LiftSession.  It's not a snippet.  All the <lift:xxx/> tags, even  
> those with defaults built into Lift, are implemented as snippets and  
> are invoked with normal snippet invocation mechanisms.
>
> That you will nest your snippet inside a special snippet?
>
> There is no special snippet.  I used the word "normal" to highlight  
> that it's functionality that doesn't require a change to LiftSession  
> or other parts of Lift to function correctly.
>
> To me it seems worthwhile to have a consistency between the two  
> syntax-wise, since they have some common denominator semantics-wise.
> Actually, maybe throw in eager_eval to the mix. Maybe we could have  
> one eval or lift:eval or liftx:eval or whatever attribute, which can  
> contain a space separated list of specifiers--eager, ajax, parellel.
>
> Anything that's prefixed with lift: is a snippet.  I'm open to  
> unifying eager_eval and do:lazy (or do:par or do:parallel) into a  
> unified namespace.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com 
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > A snippet attribute can be invoked with something other than
> > lift:snippet="Class.method"? There's a short syntax? What is it?
> >
>
> There may be a short syntax (e.g., lift:Class.method) in the future.
>
>
> > What was used for the feature that inserts a snippet  
> asynchronously via
> > Ajax?
> >
>
> That feature isn't done yet, but that feature is likely to be done  
> as a
> normal snippet.
>
>
> > My concern is that as more features are thought up and added they  
> shouldn't
> > all end up with different prefixes.
> > Also, if the prefix is nothing special I would go with the more  
> verbose
> > "parallel" because otherwise it's not obvious what it does. If  
> it's prefixed
> > with "lift:" at least you know it's a lift tag and you can look it  
> up
> > somewhere or ask on the list etc. But if you come back to some old  
> template
> > that says "do:par" you may be left clueless.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:59 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > We're using a different prefix because if we use a lift:xxx  
> prefix, the
> > snippet execution machinery will be invoked on the attribute and  
> we don't
> > want that.
> >
> > I'm cool with do:par unless anyone has a better suggestion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> > Surf the harmonics
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Surf the harmonics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Surf the harmonics
>
> >




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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