Hi,for my part i think it`s ok. it defines some structure and a nice default. That`s not the worst thing. You have the freedom to change it if you want. But if other developers find this method they know how you name your templates and hopefully find them there.
Furthermore it`s just a shortcut. So i vote pro this feature. cu odo Am 06.12.2005 um 20:35 schrieb Geert Bevin:
It does help me decide when I'm not 100% clear in my head about the scope and the implications. As I see it now, no harm can be done to ad it :-)On 6-dec-05, at 20:32, Eddy Young wrote:Geert Bevin wrote:Just for clarity, why would you think that this would be bad: getXhtmlTemplate()When you can already write this now, which does the same the previousmethod would do: getXhtmlTemplate(getElementInfo().getId());I was not aware that this method existed as I've never had to use it.But yes, if it does basically the same, I don't think you even need ourconsentment as it is a natural progression. Eddy _______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users-- Geert Bevin Uwyn bvba "Use what you need" Avenue de Scailmont 34 http://www.uwyn.com 7170 Manage, Belgium gbevin[remove] at uwyn dot com Tel +32 64 84 80 03 PGP Fingerprint : 4E21 6399 CD9E A384 6619 719A C8F4 D40D 309F D6A9 Public PGP key : available at servers pgp.mit.edu, wwwkeys.pgp.net _______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
PGP.sig
Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
_______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
