I've never said we couldn't have both. In the original thread discussion I
said we should have both. I just said that the vote shouldn't include the
annotations, as they don't affect existing code, while Steve's proposal
does, so I think it should be voted.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:48:10 -0200, Taha Siddiqi
<[email protected]> wrote:
We can have a mix of both. :)
I use an annotation @RestrictActivationContext and it takes the number
of activation context parameters allowed. It also uses a worker for
implementation. So if we have to restrict a page to only two parameters
we can annotate the page with @RestrictActivationContext(2)
I found it useful at times but if we have an application wide
configuration for pages where there are no activation contexts, it will
be useful too.
regards
Taha
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:54:33 -0200, Kalle Korhonen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Massimo, I encourage you take a crack at implementing speculative
support
for this as you see it. Until we have a concrete implementation, we are
talking in circles. If we voted on everything one might or might not
do,
we'd never never get anywhere. As I mentioned in the other thread, I
don't think Steve Eyron's proposal is sufficient.
If you're talking about the annotations, I think that's something that
doesn't need a vote, as just implementing them won't change the
existing behavior of Tapestry applications. On the other hand, Steve's
proposal does change, so I think it needs a vote and it'll get a +1
from me.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
