This is again a case of making a big deal out of a simple issue... two EASY solutions:
1) document it 2) provide <ww:push/> as well as <ww:print/>. -Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Cannon-Brookes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] xwork suggestions > I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is. > > IMHO it's a documentation problem that is easily solved - once you > understand it - it's simple? > > For the dummies: > > <ww:property> has TWO uses: > > 1: <ww:property value="x" /> will grab the value of x and print it > 2: <ww:property value="x"> ... </ww:property> will grab the value of x and > make it 'available' between the tags. > > That's it! > > Some more examples of fun to be had (from my 'teach ww to the coworkers' > spiel) > > <ww:property value="x/y"> will print getX().getY() > > <ww:property /> will print what's on the top of the stack (very useful to > debug where you are! > > Why is #2 above useful? It makes your code simpler and easier to read! > > <ww:property value="someUser"> > <ww:property value="name" /> > <ww:property value="fullName" /> > <ww:property value="email" /> > </ww:property> > > -mike > > > On 1/11/02 9:08 AM, "Hani Suleiman" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > > > While I agree that it's somewhat unintuitive to have one tag serve > > these two purposes, I don't think it should be changed. If someone were > > confused by how it worked, they'd go to the docs that talk about that > > tag, which would in turn describe both modes, if you will. That > > 'clarity' can come across as docs, it doesn't require a non-backward > > compatible code change. To use your OS analogy, how would you like it > > if a new distro of linux decided that some unix command is unintuitive, > > and decided to modify its name to better reflect its function, rather > > than document its existing 'quirks' in a man page? > > > > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 04:55 PM, boxed wrote: > > > >>> 1) No - the action tag is useful! > >> Yea, Pat gave a good creative example of why it's good. I find your > >> argument > >> very enlightening though. > >> > >>> 2) Why? The property tag is flexible - not confusing! > >> Unix has two commands: cd and cat. cd changes directory. cat prints the > >> contents of a file. Two different commands to do two different things. > >> In > >> webwork however we have a single command to do both these things and > >> it's > >> called "property", which btw doesn't really say much. Had an operating > >> system had a command like that you would not be pleased: > >> > >> c:\> property foo > >> c:\foo>property bar.txt > >> contents of bar.txt > >> c:\foo> > >> > >> How logical is that really? Besides the obvious readability aspects of > >> having a tag for printing a property and another for modifying the > >> stack, > >> the code for PropertyTag (or rather BasicPropertyTag in the CVS > >> version) is > >> rather ugly due to the fact that it's really two tags. If nothing > >> else, the > >> code should reflect this with one PrintPropertyTag and another > >> PushPropertyTag. Changing BasicPropertyTag to do exactly what it does > >> not > >> but doing it by extending PrintPropertyTag would be trivial and open up > >> possibilities for the users. It would also make the code more > >> orthogonal and > >> readable. > >> > >> // Anders Hovmöller > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > >> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > >> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > >> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > > of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > > Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
