On 8/29/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James Mitchell wrote: > > Well, the taglibs are more or less feature complete. So any changes > > are really "extensions" or "nice-to-have". > > I think this is the part of the equation I don't necessarily agree > with... I think saying they are feature-complete in terms of what they > were meant to be years ago *is* accurate. They do what was set out to > provide, > > Saying they are feature-complete in terms of what we are doing now in > web development however, isn't accurate. > > As a for instance, some months back I proposed adding AJAX functionality > to the HTML taglibs. The idea garnered a fair amount of interest from a > number of Struts users who chose to comment. Ultimately, I went off and > did it on my own, and probably for the better, but the point is that > integrating some degree of AJAX functionality into the existing tags > would not have been on the list when they were originally created, but I > for one think it should be now, so in a sense I don't consider them > feature-complete because of this omission. This is just one example, > there are others I'm sure. > > It depends on how one defines "feature-complete". In terms of what they > were originally intended, no argument, they *are* feature-complete. > > In terms of what they *should* be now, in light of how web development > is being done today, then no, I for one would not call them > "feature-complete".
In light of how *I* build web apps today, we don't need the taglibs at all! ;-) ;-) -- Martin Cooper > Also, I think the comments made (in prior discussions) about the > > taglibs being "no longer supported" is not really accurate...but I > > won't go there right now ;) > > Agreed here... anyone that says they are no longer being supported is > not painting an accurate picture. Saying they are a very low priority > in terms of growth though, *that* I think is accurate. > > > There has been some pretty extensive refactoring over the years of the > > underlying taglib code to better support extensions like we are > > proposing, so I don't see why you couldn't go do this yourself on > > another project, or submit these as extensions. > > Two things here... one is that there is a considerable difference > between extending an existing tag and having to use a new one and simply > expanding the existing tag. It is true that with 1.3 the situation is > considerably better since it is a separate sub-project. Kudos for that, > and as soon as 1.3 is released everyone will benefit from that effort. > But, any time someone says people should just create new tags that are > extensions to the existing ones, it kind of misses the point. > > Again, using the AJAX example... and please don't think this is sour > grapes or anything on my part... I'm long since past what I proposed, > but this happens to be the best example I have :) With the AJAX stuff I > originally did, people just used the same tags. They didn't have to > drop a new JAR in, didn't have to declare a new taglib, nothing like > that. What they have been using all along was exactly the same, there > was just some new functionality there if they needed it. This is > inherently different than using an extended version of HTML that has to > be added after the fact. > > Frank > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
