I went with really robust "generic" page classes. One to back lists,
another to back edit forms. Apart from a couple of special cases (login,
some forms that require weird stuff), all of my pages use the same two page
classes. So far, this approach has worked quite well for me and I haven't
found myself missing the time saving feature of the enhancements.
As a purely personal aside, my distaste for "fing magic" system
stems from the fact that I always seem to make them 80% successful in 20% of
the time of a "no magic" approach, but then lose all the time back trying to
get the last 20% of the functionality working. It's sort of like why I just
can't make myself use .net; funcational as hell, but way too many black
boxes.
--- Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Musson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:31 AM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Tapestry Enhanced Classes
Using the specification files are a really nice timesaving feature of
Tapestry. It seems like if there was a convention to the naming of the
enhanced classes then Tapestry could determine on the fly if the class
was already defined.
This way you would have enhanced classes behave just like they do
today but also have the capability to run a utility to generate the
concrete classes ahead of time if needed.
On 5/2/05, Hensley, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, if you create concrete implementation of all your properties, you do
> not get an enhanced classed. However, you must follow the initialize()
> rules, and persistent property rules, which I don't remember off the top
of
> my head because I let Tapestry handle it with Class Enhancement.
>
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:36 AM
> To: 'Tapestry users'; 'Michael Musson'
> Subject: RE: Tapestry Enhanced Classes
>
> I could be wrong on this, but if you create properties for your
page
> class, then tapestry won't have to enhance it, will it? I've never been
> personally comfortable with "fing magic" techniques (like automatic class
> enhancement, etc) so I've been using concrete setters and getters in my
page
> classes from the get-go and don't recall any of the classes being flagged
as
> enhanced in the debugger.
>
> --- Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Musson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 8:31 AM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Tapestry Enhanced Classes
>
> I have a .page file that defines a property. Tapestry enhances my page
> class by adding a member and the getter/setters and some
> reset/seriallize on change functionality. This enhancement creates a
> new class with the auto-generated code.
>
> The generated class is causing all sorts of difficulties with the
> debugger. Is there any way to pregenerate this class before deploying
> to the server? Or at the very least, enhance the class in a way that
> doesn't make the debugger confused?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
