Musachy, To get this clear, I have nothing against deprecation where it makes sense. I'm asking only the question: what are the costs of this particular deprecation, and how does this relate to it's benefits. As for the table tag, deprecating it was desperately needed since it was not longer supported, and the "costs" were small... After all, I don't feel that the set attribute deprecation is needed that much, or especially from my personal point of view it feels wrong, and I expect it get users confused either. And the costs will most probably be really big, we should be sure it's really worth it.
For the name attribute of bean: Big + 1 to deprecate name on favor of className :) But IMO changing the name attribute to id in set tag, just to be consistent with the wrong and confusing usage of name in bean feels a bit like doubling problems... I personally personally find the combination of <s:set name="foo" value="..." /> <s:textfield name="foo" /> a veeery common usecase. That said, I would be quite confused to have to write <s:set id="foo" value="..." /> <s:textfield name="foo" /> instead in future. Anyway, thanks for setting the ticket on hold for now - maybe we manage to get some more opinions in to bring any possible decision on that topic to a broad base. Regards, Rene Am Mi, 13.06.2007, 15:17, schrieb Musachy Barroso: >> >> 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 > -- 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]
