I did in my project for permission checking :) On 8/12/05, Robert Zeigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If tapestry was going to distinguish the binding type > from the attribute name, then yes, because you'd have to > have a unique attribute name, which means that you have to have the > attribute name declared in the DTD since tapestry uses a validating > parser. A possible workaround for custom types would be something like: > > <binding name="foo" custom="prefix:value"/> > > But then, really, we're back where we started, right? :) > > Or... perhaps the binding prefix could stay for value... > Then you could have attributes for the framework-defined > binding types, and still have the prefix-method around > for custom-types? In all reality, how often are people > /really/ going to define their own binding types? > > Robert > > Jamie Orchard-Hays wrote: > > Right--that was the problem Howard mentioned. Would we actually need > > custom types in the DTD, or is that just a convenience? > > > > Jamie > > On Aug 12, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Robert Zeigler wrote: > > > >> Jamie Orchard-Hays wrote: > >> > >>> The brief history is that at first people thought the default bindings > >>> would be a good idea, but in use a lot of developers kept getting > >>> confused--"is it literal? Is it ognl? What is it?" So, after a lot of > >>> discussion on the list, we voted an agreed to move to clarity and > >>> consistency over terseness. I suggested using: > >>> > >>> <binding name="foo" expression="bar" OR value="bar" OR > >>> validators="bar"> > >>> > >>> as a way to enjoy terseness, clarity and DTD completion/ validation, > >>> but > >>> I believe that Howard said there was a problem with this approach. > >>> > >>> Jamie > >>> > >> > >> The issue with this approach is that every time you add a binding type, > >> you have to extend the DTD. Which makes it very difficult for users to > >> add custom binding types, etc. > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Aug 12, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Menard wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Howard Lewis Ship wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> How about: > >>>>> > >>>>> <binding name="displayName">literal:E-mail Address</ binding> > >>>>> <binding name="validators" value="validators:required, > >>>>> email"/> > >>>>> <binding name="value" value="email"/> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is legal in 4.0 as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> It seems like it might be a bit easier to read. It's still overly > >>>> verbose and prone to typos. I guess packing two bits of > >>>> information in > >>>> a single string just really doesn't sit very well with me. I think it > >>>> makes the whole thing harder to read. In order to really > >>>> understand it, > >>>> I have to find the first ':' and separate the two entities in my head. > >>>> It's a mental step that really isn't necessary if they were just split > >>>> out to begin with. Additionally, by explicitly splitting them up > >>>> there's really no way to screw that mental step up. I just have this > >>>> sinking feeling that trying to represent two pieces of data in a > >>>> single > >>>> unit is going to cause more room for error than if the two were dealt > >>>> with in isolation. > >>>> > >>>> So, I see there being a mental block any time someone needs to > >>>> read the > >>>> value, which is going to cost everyone time every time they read > >>>> it, at > >>>> the cost of saving the initial writer a few seconds of typing if there > >>>> were an actual "type" attribute. I also see an increased risk of > >>>> typos > >>>> that won't be caught until runtime, which will also lower > >>>> productivity. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps I'm missing something here? I'm not really sure what we're > >>>> gaining but I can certainly see what we're losing. I'll admit to not > >>>> having used Tapestry on any huge in production webapps and my total > >>>> experience with the framework has only been about a year, so maybe my > >>>> lack of experience is somehow a roadblock. > >>>> > >>>> Also, please don't take this as a crap on all your work. I am > >>>> generally > >>>> very pleased with Tapestry 4 and I have nothing but the utmost respect > >>>> for you folks that are pouring all this energy into making Tapestry a > >>>> better product. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Kevin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev- [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] > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]
