The overwhelming majority seems to agree that breaking the BeanForm up into multiple rendering components would be a Good Thing. I'm not opposed to doing this, but it wouldn't be for my own personal use, so I'd like to get an idea of how you guys as a whole would feel about including this component in Contrib, assuming that it was
1. Cleaned up to match Tapestry coding standards. 2. Split up into a rendering hierarchy. 3. Well-documented. ;-) I'm not asking for any binding votes, just the general feel of the community. Take care, Daniel On 5/1/06, Nick Westgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Daniel. This looks pretty cool, but ... > ... Maybe I'm > approaching it from the wrong angle, but I just don't see the payoff in > allowing people to do that, given the complexity it will add to the code > (and the fact that I've never had to use anything but tables for my edit > forms ;-). It's the difference between a component that should live on Tassel or, dare I say it, in contrib, and a properly extensible framework component. In fact Table is such a well designed workhorse of Tapestry that it's almost an affront that it still lives in a "contrib" library! Cheers, Nick.
