I'm home for a few days; I'm printing this out to try and guage what's going on. I'm expecting that we may find some things Geoff is afraid people will try to do that we may add checks for (to make illegal). Or maybe we'll find another solution.
On 2/12/06, Apache Wiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Wiki user, > > You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta-tapestry > Wiki" for change notification. > > The following page has been changed by GeoffLongman: > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-tapestry/Tapestry5LookupDebate > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > }}} > Is a user supplied class used to resolve pages when all else fails. Since > the developer of the application supplies an implementation of > `ISpecificationResolverDelegate`, no implicit boundary crossing can occur > anyways. The implementation of Tapestry is free from responsibility. > > + And that's it for lookup rules. As a lark, I changed my local copy of > Tapestry 3 to conform to my suggestions (not the alias tags though). At work > here we have a Tapestry 3 application, otherwise I would have hacked the > Tapestry 4 code. This app has over 300 pages and components (in total) and > runs without any error I have been able to find so far. I suspect the same > would be true if I had hacked up the Tapestry 4 source code. Perhaps not a > good example as the application is proprietary and I can't share any > implementation details. But one could take this as a sign that my suggested > changes are not catastrophic. > + > + There is one more issue. In Tapestry 3.0.2 or 3.0.3 a change was made to > allow libraries to be defined in the context instead of the traditional place > (the classpath). In Tapestry 3 I don't see this as a big deal but in Tapestry > 4 this in effect makes every library page/component implicity a member of > every application namespace in the war file. That's not good. I would suggest > that libraries longer be allowed to be defined in the context. > + > + Although, I may be missing something here. Help me out. Why was this change > made? In other words, why is it a good thing that libraries can be defined in > the context? > + > + This is the end of the comments I wanted to talk about. > + > + Rip away. > + > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- 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]
