What are the downsides of defining the components in the template itself? The only one I see off the top of my head (and it's not minor, I grant) is that if your web developer isn't also an application developer, there a greater chance the component definitions will get mangled when all that information is in the template. Anything else?
Matt On 11/15/05, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yes - thats it. > you can define the components using annotations which is quite ugly, > then you can define them in your html template, > then you can define them in your .page (for page classes) or .jwc (for > component classes) xml specifications. > > Ofcause, if you wish your head to spin real bad you can also mix all > three :) > > > ציטוט Matt Welch: > > On 11/15/05, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>You are right, component annotations are clumsy. But, currently there > >>are 3 ways to define a component in a page - you might find .jwc or > >>.html way more apealing, and still use annotations for injecting or > >>setting defaults - that way you still can use what you like > >>(annotations) *and* convenient component defs. > > > > > > Ron, could you go into a little more detail about what you're > > describing here? What is the ".jwc" way? Is that the same things as > > the xxx.page XML file way? I assume the HTML way is by using implicit > > components. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
