Ok, anyonw *against* using "name" and "nameHint"? I'll commit a version
using these parameter names. If anyone has a good reason for better
names, I'm happy to change the impl.
Carsten
David Nuescheler wrote:
hi guys,
personally, i don't care too much as long as we keep the "simple case" namely
where the default namehint (if it is not explicitly set) is derived
from jcr:title, title etc..
of course, i think we should (like for all form elements that have a special
meaning to sling) prefix it with "sling:"
my personal favorite would be "sling:nameHint"
regards,
david
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
...Can we find something
else than "nodeName" ? How about "exactName" ?...
nodeName is IMHO better, as the parameter describes the name of the
created node...exactName could be the exact name of your sister ;-)
:)
But to be consistent, nameHint should be nodeNameHint maybe. A bit
longish but very clear.
Ok, we should either use "nodeNameHint" and "nodeName"
or
"name" and "nameHint"
From those two options I would prefer the first one.
Carsten
... And then, I would not filter or otherwise mangle the exact name
(this is
the difference to Betrand's proposal) and rather fail if the name is
invalid....
We are in agreement, that's what I suggested, no filtering for nodeName.
-Bertrand
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
