If this is the case it will preclude adoption of T5 in most situations. One of the trickiest things our team had to deal with was dynamic sub-components in T4 and T4.1 because there was no immediate way to index those components. I was involved in the solution but I think it required using thread local in one of the methods, in other words monitoring the state of the component very carefully to track dynamic changes. Another solution would be to maintain an index on the client with the backing mechanism to share id and index with the host. But not if this can be corrupted by a hacker. Adam
On 12/12/06, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is not much different than T4 in principle; it is just making client-persistent state more pervasive. For example, in T4 if I'd like to display some selected strings from a list to be edited in a Form, I will probably store the loop source into the session for the rewind. In T5, as there is no rewinding anymore, how can each TextField figure out which string it should set? I guess the index has to be stored by on the client. By modifying the index on the client, a hacker will be able to modify strings not selected for editing. -- Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
