Hi, Am Dienstag, den 15.04.2008, 11:27 +0200 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler: > 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.
+1 for these names ;-) Thanks and Regards Felix > > 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] > >> > > > > > > > >
