lift is already a "reserved" prefix for snippets. So I'd stay with
simply lift prefix for these attributes as well.
Br's,
Marius
On Sep 29, 11:11 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <naftoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what is your proposal? Am I interpreting you correctly that you are for a
> prefix of 'lift'? And it will be a reserved suffix?
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> marius d.<marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I realize that I may be a little late here but I do have second
> thoughts about liftx prefix. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it. I
> understand that these attributes are not really snippets or built is
> snippets but is this an enough reason to introduce a new prefix?
> Personally I don't think so. Historically lift reserved prefix names
> were heavily debated and argued and this is a little sensitive area.
>
> But the good news is that I may be the only one feeling this way about
> this and everyone else likes it so I'm just a negligible minority.
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Sep 25, 12:02 pm, David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim
> > <naftoli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > If you like the idea of having them all as attributes but don't like the
> > > idea of using a single attribute ('xx:eager_eval="true"
> > > xx:parallel="true"'
> > > rather than 'xx:eval="eager parallel"' as I suggested, where xx is the
> > > prefix to be chosen) then maybe the prefix should be 'eval'.
>
> > I've changed the code to:
> > liftx:eager_eval="true"
> > liftx:par="true" | liftx:parallel="true"
>
> > The reasons for not combining them:
>
> > - They are evaluated in different parts of the code, thus eager/parallel
> > doesn't make sense from a code path perspective
> > - I am reserving the value of liftx:par for future implementation to
> > allow farming the snippet evaluation to another mechanism. Right now,
> > it's
> > hard-coded to use LiftActors. I can see a time when it would work with
> > Akka
> > actors or some other parallelization mechanism
>
> > > As far as "ajax evaluation" I'm not sure I'm understanding. Could you show
> > > me what you're thinking?
> > > If I have a snippet
> > > <lift:MySnippet />
> > > what would be the syntax to have it inserted via ajax?
>
> > <lift:Ajax> <!-- the snippet name will not be ajax, but you get the idea -->
> > <lift:MySnippet/>
> > </lift:Ajax>
>
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > Ross Mellgren<dri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My 2 cents,
>
> > > I'm not sure I'm a fan of do: namespace, though I agree it would be
> > > nice to have a common one. Maybe snippet:parallel, snippet:eager_eval?
>
> > > -Ross
>
> > > On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:46 PM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
> > > naftoli...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > What do you mean by "as a normal snippet"?
>
> > > > The parallel snippet processing is implemented deep inside
> > > > LiftSession. It's not a snippet. All the <lift:xxx/> tags, even
> > > > those with defaults built into Lift, are implemented as snippets and
> > > > are invoked with normal snippet invocation mechanisms.
>
> > > > That you will nest your snippet inside a special snippet?
>
> > > > There is no special snippet. I used the word "normal" to highlight
> > > > that it's functionality that doesn't require a change to LiftSession
> > > > or other parts of Lift to function correctly.
>
> > > > To me it seems worthwhile to have a consistency between the two
> > > > syntax-wise, since they have some common denominator semantics-wise.
> > > > Actually, maybe throw in eager_eval to the mix. Maybe we could have
> > > > one eval or lift:eval or liftx:eval or whatever attribute, which can
> > > > contain a space separated list of specifiers--eager, ajax, parellel.
>
> > > > Anything that's prefixed with lift: is a snippet. I'm open to
> > > > unifying eager_eval and do:lazy (or do:par or do:parallel) into a
> > > > unified namespace.
>
> > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
> > > naftoli...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > A snippet attribute can be invoked with something other than
> > > > > lift:snippet="Class.method"? There's a short syntax? What is it?
>
> > > > There may be a short syntax (e.g., lift:Class.method) in the future.
>
> > > > > What was used for the feature that inserts a snippet
> > > > asynchronously via
> > > > > Ajax?
>
> > > > That feature isn't done yet, but that feature is likely to be done
> > > > as a
> > > > normal snippet.
>
> > > > > My concern is that as more features are thought up and added they
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > > all end up with different prefixes.
> > > > > Also, if the prefix is nothing special I would go with the more
> > > > verbose
> > > > > "parallel" because otherwise it's not obvious what it does. If
> > > > it's prefixed
> > > > > with "lift:" at least you know it's a lift tag and you can look it
> > > > up
> > > > > somewhere or ask on the list etc. But if you come back to some old
> > > > template
> > > > > that says "do:par" you may be left clueless.
>
> > > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > > David Pollak<feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
> > > naftoli...@gmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > Could that be changed to lift:concurrent or lift:par etc. (see
> > > > email on
> > > > > > scala-user from Marting Odersky mentioned the future use of
> > > > 'seq' and
> > > > > 'par'
> > > > > > in concurrent collections)?
> > > > > > Why use a different prefix than everything else built in to
> > > > lift? And
> > > > > > 'lazy' is arguably not what's happening.
>
> > > > > We're using a different prefix because if we use a lift:xxx
> > > > prefix, the
> > > > > snippet execution machinery will be invoked on the attribute and
> > > > we don't
> > > > > want that.
>
> > > > > I'm cool with do:par unless anyone has a better suggestion.
>
> > > > > Thanks,
>
> > > > > David
>
> > > > > > Thanks.
>
> > > > > > -------------------------------------
> > > > > > Jeppe Nejsum Madsen<je...@ingolfs.dk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > > > > > I've added code (it's in review board right now) that will
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > farm any snippet with the "do:lazy='true'" attribute set.
>
> > > > > > > So, <lift:foo/> will execute the foo snippet inline.
>
> > > > > > > <lift:foo do:lazy="true"/> will execute the foo snippet in
> > > > parallel and
> > > > > > join
> > > > > > > the result back to page before its rendered.
>
> > > > > > Very nice! In what context is the snippet executed? I assume that
> > > > > > all timeout handling, errors etc should be handled by the
> > > > snippet just
> > > > > > as in the non-lazy fashion?
>
> > > > > > /Jeppe
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> > > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
> > > > > Surf the harmonics
>
> > > > --
> > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
> > > > Surf the harmonics
>
> > > > --
> > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> > > > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > > > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
> > > > Surf the harmonics
>
> > --
> > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net
> > Beginning Scalahttp://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp
> > Surf the harmonics
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
