The tag was added last week. The interface is the same as in WW2. As far as the code is concerned I prefer code that is correct. ;-)
Cheers, Dick Zetterberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Add PushTag to WW1.3 > Please make sure that the PushTag uses the same interface (or even > better, code) that 2.0 uses. > > -Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dick Zetterberg > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [OS-webwork] Add PushTag to WW1.3 > > Hi there, > I would like to add a push tag to the 1.3 branch and I just want to > check that there are no objections to this. > Why do I want to add it when we can do the same with the property tag > already? > Because the property tag is inefficient when used for this purpose. This > is because it evaluates the body, so a new bodyContent will be created > by the container, which means that the data inside the property tag has > to be shuffled around in the bodyContents, which is inefficient. > The property tag would not be changed so it would not break > compatibility. > Any objections to this? > > Cheers, > > Dick Zetterberg > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/ _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
