I like it the way it is - defaults to literal in templates and ognl in specs. I am with Geoff on the rename - I think its going to be a pain during template development when you have an onclick just for testing out the template.
-Harish On 7/26/05, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, we don't want to make the same mistake as Sun did with Generics; > how do we reach concensus on wether to include or strip out > default-binding? Another vote? > > I tending towards leaving it as is, but there are some good ideas on > how to processed if we strip default-binding out. > > For example, changing the various link components to take a "onclick" > parameter (as a rename of "listener"), i.e. > > <a listener="listener:doClick">...</a> > > vs. > > <a onclick="listener:doClick"> ... </a> > > The lack of repetition in the second example is desirable. > > I'm also tending towards default of literal: in a template, default of > ognl: in XML. But there's that consistency issue again; perhaps is > should be literal: everywhere for best efficiency? > > > -- > 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]
