I would choose #2 and completely remove default-binding to enforce well
readable, consistent binding definitions.
If a binding prefix is not defined:
- in jwc/page it is ognl:
- in template it is literal
Br,
Norbi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry development" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Default binding prefixes: good or bad?
With the new betas out, I'm thinking that it's become easier to
discuss the binding prefixes.
I like how succinct the prefixes are but if we can get a consensus, we
can change things around.
I would suggest that, if we remove explicit default binding prefixes
on parameters, we still use a simpler system of defaults: literal:
for HTML (or other templates), ognl: for XML and elsewhere (such as
annotations).
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="listener:doSubmit">
vs.
<form jwcid="@Form" listener="ognl:listeners.doSubmit">
I prefer #1, but would be satisified with #2. Either is better than
#3 (as it stands in Tapestry 3.0).
What are people finding now that they are (hopefully) playing with Tapestry?
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
