Greg Reddin ha scritto:
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
<put name="attributeName" value="some.definition" type="definition" />
I don't think it is what you mean, because this is already there. Can
you clarify what you mean with an example?
No that's what I meant. I just never have actually used that. How
does that look on the JSP doing <tiles:insert/>?
The <tiles:insert> tag is perfectly the same, the only difference is
that the nested definition is also evaluated.
You'd think I'd know this already :-)
Err... well yes... this is because I asked you for an example. Anyway
this kind of things happens very often to me, if you don't use a thing
you don't know its existence, right? :-)
If that works the way I think it does then I'd much prefer that than
the "nested" tiles.
If you are thinking of "tiles inside tiles" they work perfectly. :-)
I'm not against support for the nested tiles, I'd probably just
never use it myself. I think it makes things look cleaner if you do
something like the above.
I don't think it is a question of clearness, but someone could abuse of
the presence of nested Tiles, e.g. repeating the same code again and
again. Anyway I am going to write some code to support nested Tiles and
when I'm finished I will submit to your judgment :-) I will start from
the SVN committed code (with no patch made by me, I mean).
Of course I rarely use nested anonymous classes with Java either.
But it's just a personal preference.
I agree with you, Java anonymous classes are very obscure. I prefer
inner classes or normal classes in some "internal" package.
Ciao
Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
