This need to read component specification for seeing what default binding
is, was one of my primary concerns. Beside introducing one more way to do
things, making things a bit more complex. No secret that I was against it.
Also some disapointment was because developer resources were spent on
feature that doesn't get full community support, whereas there are bunch of
them that would get +1 from everyone.
Cheers,
Vjeran
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Ferraro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: default-binding hell
This has been an ongoing debate on the dev list. Both committers and
users are split around whether or not this feature causes more confusion
than it helps. There was even a vote (which failed) on whether or not to
remove this feature. Check out the dev list archives and read what has
been said about this topic already. As a 4.0 alpha tester, feel free to
chime in on the dev list where your concerns for 4.0 will receive better
visibility.
Paul
Norbert Sándor wrote:
Hi,
In 4.0, I'm very confused because of default-binding. I always have to
check the parameter's default-binding attribute or explicitly use a
binding prefix.
Wouldn't it be better:
- if there is no binding prefix then it would be treated as "ognl" (if
someone wants then the appropriate custom binding prefix could be used)
- default-binding would go away
I think default-binding corrupts the consistency of the clean component
specifications!
For example if I look at the specification part
<component ....>
<binding name="something" value="property" />
</component>
then I don't know if "property" is a JavaBean property or it is the name
of an asset or a component. To know this, I have to check the
default-binding of the parameter.
So it makes the specification very hard to read.
What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
