On Sep 30, 8:23 am, Kevin Wright <kev.lee.wri...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I thought there were issues here because anything starting lift: gets
> executed as a snippet.

Correct BUT lift:par or lift:parallel attributes are also applicable
to snippets context. They determine the snippet's execution semantics.
So I'm still questioning the need for a new prefix.

>
> 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