I'm torn - I like the fact that we are getting the ajax code out of the
base, but especially for webwork->s2 upgrades there is going to be more
work. The other thing is that 2.0.2 is still beta, and frankly I don't
think there is that many people using the tags at the moment, so this
would be a good time to make the change.
/Ian
David H. DeWolf wrote:
That's what I'm imagining too. . .and we're agreeing that this
incompatibility is a pill we have to swallow.
Ian Roughley wrote:
I think I am missing something here - how will the tags be invoked?
It will need to be a new tld with a new name space, right? Something
like <dojo:select ... /> rather than <s:select theme="ajax" ... /> -
so there will be a compatibility issue, but all the functionality
will be moved forward.
/Ian
David H. DeWolf wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Don mentioned a separate tag library, so that would indicate another
prefix, but there'd be no reason why the internal tag syntax would
change.
To keep the codebase manageable, I believe we do need to make this
change, and I'd rather make it now while we are in our first beta
series than after the first Struts 2 GA. The plugin model might also
open the door to other AJAX implementations of the same tags.
I agree. I like it, but just wanted to make sure we think through
the compatibility changes before we make a decision.
In essence we're saying that this change is more important than
backwards compat of this one tag and we're willing to live with
those repercussions. I'm on board with that.
-T.
On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, as long as we keep the tag prefixes and tag names once they are
abstracted from the plugin.
At one point we talked about having a simple version which is
extended
by the dojo version and added additional (dojo-specific)
featuers. It
seems like the current names would be more likely be used for the
core
tags - not the dojo-enhanced ones.
Ted Husted wrote:
> A struts-dojo plugin shouldn't change the tag syntax. It should
just
> be a matter of adding the JAR, as we do for Spring, and
JasperReports,
> and Tiles, so forth.
>
> On 12/27/06, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nope, that's the one I'm talking about. I got the impression
we were
>> going to keep it as is and thus break backwards compatibility
in 2.0.2
>> -- and then mess with it again it when we create the plugin. . .
>>
>> David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]