I thought there were issues here because anything starting lift: gets
executed as a snippet.

I'm still for an eval: prefix, as these proposals all relate to how a
page is evaluated.



On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, marius d. <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> lift is already a "reserved" prefix for snippets. So I'd stay with
> simply lift prefix for these attributes as well.
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Sep 29, 11:11 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So what is your proposal? Am I interpreting you correctly that you are for a 
>> prefix of 'lift'? And it will be a reserved suffix?
>>
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> marius d.<marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I realize that I may be a little late here but I do have second
>> thoughts about liftx prefix. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it. I
>> understand that these attributes are not really snippets or built is
>> snippets but is this an enough reason to introduce a new prefix?
>> Personally I don't think so. Historically lift reserved prefix names
>> were heavily debated and argued and this is a little sensitive area.
>>
>> But the good news is that I may be the only one feeling this way about
>> this and everyone else likes it so I'm just a negligible minority.
>>
>> Br's,
>> Marius
>>
>> On Sep 25, 12:02 pm, David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim 
>> > <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > > 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'.
>>
>> > I've changed the code to:
>> > liftx:eager_eval="true"
>> > liftx:par="true" | liftx:parallel="true"
>>
>> > The reasons for not combining them:
>>
>> >    - They are evaluated in different parts of the code, thus eager/parallel
>> >    doesn't make sense from a code path perspective
>> >    - I am reserving the value of liftx:par for future implementation to
>> >    allow farming the snippet evaluation to another mechanism.  Right now, 
>> > it's
>> >    hard-coded to use LiftActors.  I can see a time when it would work with 
>> > Akka
>> >    actors or some other parallelization mechanism
>>
>> > > 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?
>>
>> > <lift:Ajax> <!-- the snippet name will not be ajax, but you get the idea 
>> > -->
>> >   <lift:MySnippet/>
>> > </lift: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 frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>> > > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>> > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>> > > > > Surf the harmonics
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>> > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>> > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>> > > > Surf the harmonics
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>> > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>> > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
>> > > > Surf the harmonics
>>
>> > --
>> > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
>> > Beginning Scalahttp://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