I was really hoping to eliminate inherited binding; it causes a bunch of headaches and ambiguitites, but I can see your point. Let me ponder!
On 7/18/05, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Unfortunately, the removal of 'inherited-binding' appear to cause a problem. > The reason is that if a parameter is not bound, then 'default-value' is > used, but 'binding' always binds the parameter. > > In other words: > With 'inherited-binding', the parameter of the inner component is not bound > if the inherited parameter of the outer component is not bound either. > 'default-value' is then used. > > With 'binding', the parameter of the inner component is _always_ bound, even > if the inherited parameter of the outer component is not bound. The > parameter is bound to 'null' in that case and 'default-value' is not used as > a result. > > I am trying to think of a good way to avoid returning 'inherited-binding' to > avoid that problem, but I cannot come up with a clean way to do so. Any > ideas? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
