If I could I'd definitely vote for any kind of shortcut for the @Insert
component,
and end it with that.
>${ognl:something}
> have to expand it in :
><span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:something" class="ognl:dueClass"/>
All tha HTML code arround the expression makes it very hard to read, even
with
the colored syntax. Why complicate our lives with the search od Utopia, here
is no way to stop people from making messy code :)
On 5/15/05, Vjeran Marcinko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since I'm quite loud about these things last couple of days, I would
> definetly give -1 on this if anyone is interested.
> I agree that "less is more", but "less" doesn't necessarily mean "less
> typing".
>
> If everything starting going down this road, we can argue that :
> <span jwcid="@Conditional" condition="ognl:something">
> ....
> </span>
> could have convenience replacement as:
> $if{
> ....
> }
> ,maybe even :
> $if{
> }else{
> }
> Because Condition is such oftenly used component as well, and also
> cumbersome to use compared to some other web frameworks. See where this
> would be going?
>
> I remember myself learning Tapestry, and that was exactly my first opinion
> about inserting text - how cumbersome!
> I have to type :
> <span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:something"/>
> instead of:
> $something (from my Velocity background)
>
> BUT, when I continued to learn Tapestry further, I realized how consistent
> that was with usage of all other components, and it helped me to grasp
> component concept easier.
> If something is consistent with everything else in framework, then it
> means
> LESS effort to grasp it in your mind. And that is LESS I'm talking about
> in
> LESS IS MORE mantra!
>
> As it is now, it is cleary visible where are components on the page : just
> Search File for JWCIDs, and ta-dah!
> And what happens when I want to add A SMALL change to component, eg.
> "class"
> binding, to already existing :
> ${ognl:something}
> I have to expand it in :
> <span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:something" class="ognl:dueClass"/>
> It will certainly confuse some newbie that compares these 2 versions of
> HTML!
>
> Change from :
> <span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:something"/>
> to
> <span jwcid="@Insert" value="ognl:something" class="ognl:dueClass"/>
> is much more understadable to anyone.
>
> One more thing to think about. You all read around about Tapestry, and
> what
> people are saying about it on the web...
> There are many praises, and nobody disputes it's power, but usual bad
> experiences are:
> - It's complex. I had to learn in detail it's request flow.
> - Where do I initialize things
> - no pretty URLs etc...
> I somehow never remembered anyone giving usage of Insert component as bad
> experience in Tapestry?!
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> -Vjeran
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Zeigler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Tapestry development" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (TAPESTRY-331) Simplified insert binding
> template syntax
>
>
> > Hm. My impression of howard's original suggestion was not that this was
> > another component declaration method. Rather, it was a more... direct
> > way of inserting text.
> > As it happens... you could conceivably then mimic various other
> > behavior, such as @Any, @Insert, etc. But that's a side-effect.
> > While I understand the "more is less" sentiment, sometimes the question
> > must be posed: what if what's there isn't right? Sure, @Insert and @Any
> > "Get the job done", but there are so many times where I find myself
> > putting in yet more markup, doing even more typing, just for some very
> > simple things. Tapestry goes a long way towards making difficult things
> > possible; why not go a little further in making simple things simple?
> > <h2><span jwcid="@Insert" value="message:title"/></h2>
> > Oh, and... since this template /is/ previewable... you end up having to
> > do something like this for wysiwyg preview:
> > <h2><span jwcid="@Insert" value="message:title">Title Text</span></h2>
> >
> > Frankly, to a designer, "Title Text" is just as meaningful(meaningless?)
> > as:
> > ${message:title}
> > only, they don't have to understand that "the span isn't really a
> > span... unless you put a class in there, then it really will be a
> span..."
> > <h2>${message:title}</h2>
> >
> > Smaller, simpler, cleaner, lighter.
> > Do that... and deprecate <span key="message">Message</span>
> > Then you're back to two ways of doing things.
> >
> > For that matter, if all I need is a dynamically defined class on
> > something, why do:
> > <ol jwcid="@Any" class="ognl:dynamicClass">
> > ...
> > </ol>
> > why not just:
> > <ol class="${dynamicclass}">
> > ...
> > </ol>
> > I wholeheartedly disagree that this is messy, ugly, or unclean. In fact,
> > I think it's at least 2x cleaner. :) But... to each his own, I guess. =)
> >
> > Robert
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10.5.2005
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
