Sure ist a mutter of conventions and taste-
My taste is favouring the detailed one @Binding(name=...), somehow I
find it more apealing and easier to maintain - I like double klicking
the string and changing it instead of drugging the mouse over -
and - it is, for my taste, more aligned with conventions and more self
documenting, which I find important.
bindings="value=ognl:value" always seemed to me more like a hack, a
direct transform of template-html to an annotation than a definition in
the java-language.
I am also curious what others think...
Cheers,
Ron
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> This is open for debate, of course. I consider the approach I've taken
> with
> this annotation to be a kind of developer-time optimization, and I
don't
> think it's premature. I think your suggestion is quite valid, but I
> think it
> is overkill, in the way that may XML applications use overly deep
nested
> elements (often, where simple XML attributes could be used instead, to
> complete the rough analogy). Does that make sense?
>
> Basically, my constant thought in T5 is to focus on the application
> developer, not the tool builder. In many cases, I've deliberately made
> things hard for myself, to make things as easy as I know how for the
> application developer. In other cases, such as this one, I've taken
> shortcuts -- pragamatism over dogmatism. I want those application
> developers
> to type as little as possible, to struggle with the editor as little as
> possible.
>
> Using nested @Binding annotations has a couple of minor advantages
in terms
> of code completion and compile time validty. Someone how types
> @Component(bindings="foo") will have to wait until runtime to see the
> error. So be it.
>
> On 12/12/06, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi -
>> wanted to ask about the component bindings.
>> Currently I know the bindigns annotation attribute is
>>
>> String[] bindings.
>>
>> in the format of "name=value"
>>
>> Though requiring more typing, which I know *some* of you really
dislike,
>> it is common to split such "complex" values to sub-annotations:
>>
>> bindings={ @Binding( name="listener", value="listener:doSomething" ) }
>>
>> or even
>>
>> bindings={
>> @Binding( name="listener", type="listener", value="doSomething" )
>> }
>>
>> this will be, as far as i can see, easier to maintain and ofcouase to
>> parse.
>>
>> what do you think?
>>
>> just my 3 cent...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
