Talking about confusion: Let's say we have changed the attribute usage to id instead of name for the set tag. What would the user expect when seeing the following code?: <s:set id="foo" value="'bar'" /> <s:property id="foo" />
I think that's the next thing we should do, remove the "id" property on tags that don't use it, like property for example, which is just confusing, and doesn't do anything. Sure, that's how deprecation works. But we have enough examples on how bad
it is to get even our own wiki docs in shape after doing similar changes. For such a heavy used tag as set (in users source code, as well as documentation resources), we will most probably have lots of messed up examples, code fragment etc in future. As an example: I bet you will still find a lot of code examples in s2-docs using deprecated tag syntax, although it is deprecated for at least two years now (in WW2). And this only references the resources we can manage to get our hands on ...
I agree with you, but I think the solution is not to avoid deprecation but to actually remove things on the right time, for example in the case of the set tag which I already changed (I will change it again after we get to an agreement on this), I logged a ticket set to "future" to hide the name attribute, in the case of the "table" tag, which was deprecated a long time ago, I created a ticket to drop it and it will be dropped on 2.1. Another thing is that in the case of the "bean" tag, we have to use "id" because "name" is used for the class name, (yes, it should have been "className" :) ) musachy Regards,
Rene > -----Original Message----- > From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 June 2007 07:58 > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: name inconsistency > > -1 for that from my point of view: > > - id in html page context refers the unique identifier on a page, whereas > name lets you bind to a named target, not necessarily having to be unique > on > the page. set clearly references a name from that understanding (set the > named property). I would find id quite misleading. > - TONS of documentation resources, including third party, reference the > set > tag (as a WW2 / S2 / even WW1 tag). It is one of the most used tags. > Once we deprecate this, this docs will have to be changed or will confuse > users. > > Regards, > Rene > > Musachy Barroso schrieb: >> This is a really minor thing, but it gets me all the time, the set tag >> uses the "name" attribute for the variable name, while the url, and >> bean tags use "id", anybody against deprecating the "name" attribute >> in set and using "id" >> instead? >> >> regards >> musachy > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > -- Rene Gielen | http://it-neering.net/ Aachen | PGP-ID: BECB785A Germany | gielen at it-neering.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
