I'm with Hani - property tag should stay as is. IMHO it's a documentation problem that is easily solved - once you understand it - it's simple?
For the dummies: <ww:property> has TWO uses: 1: <ww:property value="x" /> will grab the value of x and print it 2: <ww:property value="x"> ... </ww:property> will grab the value of x and make it 'available' between the tags. That's it! Some more examples of fun to be had (from my 'teach ww to the coworkers' spiel) <ww:property value="x/y"> will print getX().getY() <ww:property /> will print what's on the top of the stack (very useful to debug where you are! Why is #2 above useful? It makes your code simpler and easier to read! <ww:property value="someUser"> <ww:property value="name" /> <ww:property value="fullName" /> <ww:property value="email" /> </ww:property> -mike On 1/11/02 9:08 AM, "Hani Suleiman" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > While I agree that it's somewhat unintuitive to have one tag serve > these two purposes, I don't think it should be changed. If someone were > confused by how it worked, they'd go to the docs that talk about that > tag, which would in turn describe both modes, if you will. That > 'clarity' can come across as docs, it doesn't require a non-backward > compatible code change. To use your OS analogy, how would you like it > if a new distro of linux decided that some unix command is unintuitive, > and decided to modify its name to better reflect its function, rather > than document its existing 'quirks' in a man page? > > On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 04:55 PM, boxed wrote: > >>> 1) No - the action tag is useful! >> Yea, Pat gave a good creative example of why it's good. I find your >> argument >> very enlightening though. >> >>> 2) Why? The property tag is flexible - not confusing! >> Unix has two commands: cd and cat. cd changes directory. cat prints the >> contents of a file. Two different commands to do two different things. >> In >> webwork however we have a single command to do both these things and >> it's >> called "property", which btw doesn't really say much. Had an operating >> system had a command like that you would not be pleased: >> >> c:\> property foo >> c:\foo>property bar.txt >> contents of bar.txt >> c:\foo> >> >> How logical is that really? Besides the obvious readability aspects of >> having a tag for printing a property and another for modifying the >> stack, >> the code for PropertyTag (or rather BasicPropertyTag in the CVS >> version) is >> rather ugly due to the fact that it's really two tags. If nothing >> else, the >> code should reflect this with one PrintPropertyTag and another >> PushPropertyTag. Changing BasicPropertyTag to do exactly what it does >> not >> but doing it by extending PrintPropertyTag would be trivial and open up >> possibilities for the users. It would also make the code more >> orthogonal and >> readable. >> >> // Anders Hovmöller >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future >> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community >> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. >> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future > of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community > Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
