Michael, there is absolutly nothing wrong with the way you are doing it. I almost always have my own BasePage that gets inheritated for using common methods and such. The only tricky part is when you want your base page to also have Tapestry specifics bits and pieces in it that inheritance is an issue (much less so with the new annotations).
If your base page has components/abstract methods/etc, they will also need to be declared in each .page file that extends it, and could get messy. Which is what I think Ron was referring to (yell if its not!). -Nick On 7/1/05, Michael Engelhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
