Howard Lewis Ship 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>
The fact that the chosen binding prefix and the component's parameter
name happen to be the same in this example does not bother me. To call
them redundant seems superficial.
vs.
<a onclick="listener:doClick"> ... </a>
Makes no difference to me ... except that "onclick" is a common HTML
attribute often used as an informal parameter for javascript actions
(e.g. confirmation windows). You'll have to pick a different name.
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?
I prefer to have "literal:" be the universal default.
If the default binding prefix is "ognl:" then I think users will be more
inclined to use ognl to define literal expressions (as in 3.0) rather
than use the more efficient literal binding.
e.g.
<property name="message" value="'This is my message'"/>
... may be more attractive (since it requires less typing), but is less
efficient than ...
<property name="message" value="literal:This is my message"/>
I think the best strategy is to choose the most consistent approach as
the default (i.e. literal everywhere) and allow users to override it to
their hearts' content.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
