Well, that seeming inconsistency came straight from JSP. It actually
does have a purpose, though.
@ commands are done at compile time.
psp: commands do something at runtime.
Jay
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> At 01:52 PM 6/8/2001 -0400, Geoff Talvola wrote:
>
>> I just noticed that the documentation for PSP specifies the following
>> syntax:
>>
>> If you want to include another PSP file in this PSP file and have it
>> be parsed for PSP content:
>> <%@include file="myfile.txt"%>
>>
>> If you want to forward the request to another servlet, including the
>> result in the output:
>> <psp:include file="myfile.psp">
>
>
> It looks strange that <[EMAIL PROTECTED] and <psp:include... have extremely
> different semantics. And why is one prefixed with "@" and the other
> with "psp:"? Why are they both called "include" if they do something
> different?
>
> I don't use *SP much in practice, so I don't take the semantics or
> syntax for granted.
>
> Sorry if this is already explained in the docs, but it points at that
> at first glance this seems rather arcane.
>
>
>> If you want to insert a file verbatim into the output:
>> <psp:insert file="myfile.html">
>>
>> But, it turns out that you actually have to use <psp:include
>> path="myfile.psp">. The other two ones do work as advertised with
>> "file=".
>>
>> Any objections to making all three of them use file=, to be
>> consistent with each other and with the documentation?
>
>
> No objection from me, but I'm really bothered by what I noticed above.
>
>
> -Chuck
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webware-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
