Is that really the case? That the Tapestry way is to create
components instead of inheritance? For example I have code that I use
in almost every page and it's much less brittle to just call a method
name rather than calling getComponent() with a string parameter.
I mean I use components all the time and they're very powerful but in
cases where every page has the same method it just seems more OO to
put it in a base class.
But I'm relatively new to Tapestry so I may be off base. :-)
Mike
On 6/30/05, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have tried a few times using base classes and inheritance.
> At the end I came to the conclusion that "the tapestry way" is using
> components *instead* - if a page is a "container" with some
> functionality, a component is also a container... so instead of
> implementing things on the page scope, implement them on a component,
> and drop the component on a page...
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
>
> ציטוט Michael Engelhart:
> > Thanks but I'm using Java 1.4.x and Tapestry 3.0.
> > On 6/29/05, Nick Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You can with annotations fairly easiely, and you can even do it with
> >>interfaces if you really want (Howard shows an example of this
> >>somewhere).
> >>
> >> Say you have an object you wanted injected into some
> >>pages/components, write an interface like so:
> >>
> >>public interface ObjectUser {
> >>
> >> @InjectObject("service:someService";)
> >> public SomeService getSomeService();
> >>
> >>}
> >>
> >>then, if you wanted a page/comp to be able to access this just
> >>implement the interface and call the method. Really is that easy. I
> >>thought this was pretty slick at least.
> >>
> >>-Nick
> >>
> >>
> >>On 6/29/05, Michael Engelhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi -
> >>>Is there a way to create a templateless abstract base page for a Tapestry
> >>>app?
> >>>
> >>>I currently have a base page class that extends BasePage but I want to
> >>>make that class be able to take advantage of a page specification to
> >>>limit the writing of code make clean up of persistent properties
> >>>easier.
> >>>
> >>>Is there a way to do this?
> >>>
> >>>THanks
> >>>Mike
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>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]
>
>
