On Jul 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Norbert Sándor wrote:
If implicit components are not used then in the template only
literal: is used.
In most cases I use ognl: binding in the specs (even now when the
new bindings are available).
That's why I think that in the spec. the default should be ognl:.
I hardly ever use literal:, page spec or HTML; I almost always use
ognl:. So who's right on what the default should be? Really, I'm
less concerned about what the default is. The context in which the
component is defined really shouldn't change how it's used, and
that's what concerns me.
As a beginner with Tapestry, that burned me a few times, btw. It's
another rule to learn that doesn't really seem to serve much of a
purpose, other than to tailor to how people choose to use implicit VS
declared components, which is very much a stylistic thing.
I think that consistency is the key: I would prefer the default-
binding to be removed.
Another configuration option or other solution would make bindings
only more complicated which would confuse users.
Doesn't this just refute what you were saying above? Sounds like
you're willing to forego consistency so long as it matches your
development style . . .
FWIW, what I was proposing is that the default would be literal: or
something, and if you, the more advanced user, so chose, you could
change the default to message:. I did just throw it out there as a
simple solution, but now that I think about it more, it doesn't seem
that bad. Tapestry already has a base set of defaults that are
overridable by the more savvy user. So, it's not as if we'd be
introducing a huge paradigm shift.
--
Kevin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
