Richard Lewis-Shell wrote: > Sold! > > This is the best argument so far (IMO). Informal bindings HAVE to be > literal in templates, which means only confusion if formal parameters in > the template have ANY other default. > > Making specification bindings use literal by default will just be > painful to work with (too many "ognl:"s) - I believe that pain would > outweigh any consistency gain. I am comfortable with the idea that > template component declarations are handled differently from > specification component declarations (afterall they do look completely > different). > > Seems Tapestry 3 got it right :-)
But... tap 3 has no ambiguity in the specification because there's a different element for each binding type. There's no confusion because you /can't/ confuse them. In tp4, however, that's not the case. Hence, personally, I'm still more comfortable with making things "literal" across the board. <binding name="foo" value="bar"/> value should be the value, unless you state otherwise. In my opinion. :) Still, I could live with the discrepancy. :) Robert > > I like Jamie's suggestion to add DTD support for different binding types > - we need not lose the flexibility to add new binding types in the > future do we? The framework provides some standard ones (literal, > message, listener etc), but we can leave the expression="abc: syntax for > when someone wants to create a new prefix. If that prefix makes sense > to the framework as a whole, it can be added in later, and given DTD > support. > > Richard > > Mind Bridge wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just my 2c: >> >> At the very least, the informal parameters must always be 'literal' in >> the templates to eliminate involuntary mistakes by the designers. This >> is not at stake at the moment, but the leap is not that great from >> there to formal parameters. >> >> Similar logic can be used for 'novice' users -- with default-binding >> they will feel like they can only code by example, as involuntary >> mistakes would be much more likely. Not having default-binding would >> make the code a bit longer, but at least you would need far less >> knowledge to be productive (which is what Tapestry is about). >> >> In other words, a new developer could start working much faster, >> rather than waste a lot of time to ponder what the templates mean. >> >> Someone said that shorter does not always mean clearer, and I think >> that in this case he is particularly right. >> >> >> An unrelated matter: I would suggest to replace 'literal' with 'text' >> or sth short like that -- 'literal' is just too long, albeit verbally >> accurate. >> >> -mb >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
