On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's funny, here at JavaOne I've been having some discussions with > people, and I think an area of error in Tapestry is it does too many > "smart" things (such as your idea) that make certain edge cases very > concise, but make the totality of the framework harder to describe > (and make its behavior harder to predict and reason about). So you really think this is "too smart" ? I mean even with something like a specific prefix as Thiago suggested? I really like the idea to provide defaults for components as Symbol so an application or even a library could replace the default for commons components in a single easy place... Cheers -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
