Hi,
Any ideas about this? I have been trying to think of a way to do this
with just 'binding', but I am not sure it can be done without two
different values of 'null'...
Should we return inherited-binding? That is easy -- the code is in from
3.0, only the DTD needs to be changed.
-mb
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
