I would make them components if at all possible. What functionality are you losing by not subclassing a page? A component can pretty much do everything that a page can do, and if there's something more you need from a page it might be an indicator that you need to do more service injection and less inheritance (ie favoring comp vs inheritance is good..) .
We've done this quite a bit using tapestry in our product. The only thing that hasn't been realised (yet) is more useful subclassing when it does actually make sense, but it seems that the annotation support would eliminate this hassle. (ie not having to re copy/paste a .jwc file spec) jesse On 10/26/05, Dan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, my application is comprised of 2 sites. On site A i create a > search page that searches, displays results, etc. Now I want to put the > same page on the other site but there are small differences in the > pages. On site A only certain content gets searched that is not searched > on site B. So my natural instinct is to take the Search page class on > site A and pull out a BaseSearch class and then create a small class on > site B that subclasses BaseSearch. The problem is refactoring the html > that should go with the BaseSearch class. Site A and site B have > different borders so the html I want to refactor is just the content > within the border. I've thought about pulling BaseSearch out into a > component but then I lose all of the functionality provided by the page > superclasses that BaseSearch currently subclasses. Any suggestions here? > > -- > Dan Adams > Software Engineer > Interactive Factory > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
