I don't have quite as much to say on the subject, but I will chime
in to say I'm not a big fan of default binding either. I know what I was
learning tapestry it was very confusing to figure out whether I should be
typing "ognl:foo" or just plain "foo" and whether just plain foo was going
to be parsed or a literal.
I don't really mind typing an extra five characters if it makes my
code more consistent and readable, so I at least would rather that ognl
always meant ognl, and a literal always be a literal. For me, having these
sorts of context specific behaviors just makes the product harder to learn
and harder to debug later for no real benefit (does skipping 5 characters
while typing *really* make much of a difference in the grand scheme of
things? If so, shouldn't we all use single character variable names
exclusively?)
I guess I did have something to say on the topic after all ...
--- Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vjeran Marcinko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:21 PM
> To: Tapestry users; Howard Lewis Ship
> Subject: Default binding recap [WAS: 4.0: listeners]
>
> Hi all.
>
> I posted about this recently on dev list, but I think I know how to
> express
> myself better now...
>
> Anyway, in 4.0 we now have multiple choices :
> 1. listener="ognl:listeners.formSubmit"
> 2. listener="listeners:formSubmit"
> 3. listener="formSubmit"
>
> First one is 3.0 compatibile, second and third have apeared in 4.0, and
> beside being shorter, they also use reflection less, thus are probably a
> bit
> faster.
> IMHO, although the shortest, problematic is third one.
> Why? Because it is the only one that is not self-descriptive. I requires
> you
> to switch to .jwc file to know what type of value that is. True, nobody
> forces me to use that style, but thing is that I won't be looking only at
> things developed by myself, but also at other's stuff, and that will force
> me to switch files.
>
> And I think that "listener" example isn't a good one, because whenever we
> see parameter called "listener", it's a kinda standardized name, and we
> all
> know it's a listener parameter, thus default binding has much more sense
> for
> that than normally.
> Let's say you have stumbled upon some .html developed by your co-worker
> who
> loves default bindings, and all you see is:
> <span jwcid="@AttributePresenter" attribute="shortVersion" />
> <span jwcid="@Shotter" character="simple" value="parent" />
>
> And although you remember these AttributePresenter and Shotter components
> because you worked with them 3 weeks ago, you cannot exactly remember now
> what types of parameters these attribute/character/value are, and you
> forced
> to look at their .jwc files :-(
>
> Regards,
> Vjeran
>
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
