Hi Geert and Eddy, > Some people might rip you apart when you call this a component since it > doesn't handle any encapsulation of state (which is what happened to me > last time on JavaLobby), but anyway.
Indeed, it's just a "view component", maybe "component" is not the right word. Sorry you got flamed :-( One point I'd like to make is that an example such as mine to display an HTML table, is by no means meant to be reusable "by everyone in every application for every purpose super-duper component". Far from that. I find that such attempts become WAY to complicated to use, and there's always some particular case that you want that's missing. ;-) No, instead it's just to reuse it in a particular app to reduce cut-and-paste and be able to make a change in one place to have it show up across the app. But your point about evaluating the need for behavior/interaction in order to decide to make it a component / Element, is well taken. Thanks for the info. > Which is exactly why I find components cumbersome in most cases. A > component should be relevant on its own, and to do that a developer > would have to consider many different possibilities. Agreed. That's why I don't think one should try to write a generic component for all purposes. I appreciate your responses. You have to love RIFE for being designed in such a way to allow developers to try out things like these and they just fit in and work quite well! :-) Frederic _______________________________________________ Rife-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uwyn.com/mailman/listinfo/rife-users
