Would you consider some kind of compatibility mode? That is, before
you remove support for these, could there be a way for people to
configure things for a more strict or more compatible evaluation, to
ease migration? It seems like the closest you can get to deprecation
warnings in tag libs/JSPs.
Just a thought. I don't have a ton of time to put into it myself,
and I wouldn't make a big fuss if it weren't done.
Joe
At 5:37 PM -0500 6/13/06, Greg Reddin wrote:
Ticket SB-21 [1] seeks to simplify the Tiles taglib API. First,
it's a given that this will break backwards compatibility. You
can't reduce an API without breaking compatibility. But as long as
we're seeing this version of Tiles as a rework, I don't think it's a
problem. Also, I don't think it's a difficult thing to fix in
existing applications. No functionality will be removed, but
redundant hooks to the same functionality will be removed. Finally,
I think this will be one of the greatest improvements to the
usability of Tiles. I'm currently working on a patch to implement
this.
Of the attributes that are currently supported by InsertTag, I
believe the following are redundant:
1) attribute, definition, name could all be resolved to name.
2) component, page, and template could all be resolved to template.
In addition the name attribute can be interpreted as either a
pointer to a Tiles definition or attribute or an URL, which
essentially makes it equivalent to page and template. I propose
that we reduce all these meanings down to the "name" attribute.
IOW, name can be a definition name or an attribute name. I suspect
this is how Tiles is being used in 90% of applications anyway. I
know that's how I use it. Further, I propose that we reduce all the
URL-based attributes to the "template" attribute. So if you want to
directly insert a page you must use the template attribute.
The net result is that you can use the insert tag in the following ways:
<tiles:insert name="someName"/>
- to insert a Tiles definition or attribute.
<tiles:insert template="/somepage.jsp"/>
- to insert a URL.
I'm not really sure what the use of the beanName and beanProperty
values are, so if someone wants to enlighten me on that, I'd
appreciate it.
Finally, I personally don't see the use for including a
controllerClass or controllerUrl in the insert tag. IMO, if you
want to do something like that you should use the definition tag
instead.
I still intend to completely support attributes defined in the tag
body as such:
<tiles:insert name="someDefinition">
<tiles:put name="someAttribute" value="someValue"/>
</tiles:insert>
And the other attributes like flush, ignore, and role will continue
to function as always. Have I left out any major uses of the insert
tag? Does this change remove any functionality that anyone is
currently relying on?
Thanks,
Greg
[1] http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SB-21
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Joe Germuska
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
