Re: element

[Tim Ruppert]

-1




Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:46 AM, David E Jones wrote:

yeah - I just went thru and checked a bunch of my projects - and we're using this in a number of places. Please leave this in place - as it IS in use.

-1





-David


On Jun 21, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:

Unless I'm missing someting... If we deprecate that then it means the only way to get a decorator is to split up the HTML into separate FTL files. That may work fine in some cases, but is an annoying limitation. I'm also curious about what sort of harm this is causing that makes it a good candidate for elimination... I haven't seen anyone mention that yet.

+1

--- On Sat, 6/21/08, Jacques Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

From: Jacques Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: <html-template-decorator> element
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Saturday, June 21, 2008, 6:49 AM
I note that in OFBiz the <html-template-decorator>
element is only used once. Its usage is discouraged in
OFBiz, note this comment :
"We don't really want to encourage the use of the
html-template-decorator, should be done on the screen
level. To include the
sections in the decorator template just use the
"render(sectionName)" method "sections"
object, FTL example:
${sections.render("main")}. For more efficient
use the sections.render(sectionName, writer) method should
be used, in FTL this would
be in a transform or something."



So I wonder why it still exists, should we not deprecate it
and later even remove it ? It's weird to me to have an
element that you
discourage usage ...



Jacques

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature