> I don't want a .page for all the 200 html I have and I don't want to > declare the 200 pages, because I am going to forget most of them in the > .application and don't want to write the servlet either cause I don't > need it... <phew/> >
This is an interesting point - we currently have over 240 pages in our 100% Tapestry application. And it is a pain. We have just put in place a library, but that mainly holds components, not pages. Maybe (and I'm thinking out loud here) it would be better to have a page-spec define its name instead of defining its name in the application/library file? If there was some way to associate a page with a library-spec (can a page belong to more than one application/library?) then perhaps Tapestry could just go looking for all .page files, and save having to put them in a application/library file. I think WO must do something similar - I don't remember having to define my pages 'up front'. Or perhaps if it doesn't make sense for a page/component to reference its application, then Tapestry could assume that any pages/components not defined in a library were application components. Though I remember asking not so long ago for a way to hide components/pages from being re(ab)used - perhaps some sort of visibility setting in a page/component spec could do this - eg. visibility=library (only visible to the components/pages from the library its defined in), or visibility=all (any component/page can reuse). R ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
