Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Is this standard going to be followed for every attribute? Currently, it
seems that certain attributes are exempt and it is difficult to predict
which. For example, when setting params with ww:param on the BeanTag the
name is evaluated whereas on the URLTag it is not. This is due to the
ParamTag not evaluating the 'name' attribute but leaving it to the
ParametisedTag to override the addParam() method.
ie
public void addParam(String key, Object value) {
OgnlUtil.setProperty(findString(key), value, bean, getStack().getContext());
}
If it is decided that all attributes are to be evaluated then this should be
made consistent by moving the evaluation code into the ParamTag. Otherwise,
if this selective evaluation is to be kept then I suggest some naming
standard is used and well documented.
Personally I had no problems with the old WW2 practice of not evaluating
'name' attributes. I have to struggle to think of a situation where
evaluating any 'name' attribute is useful. But I can understand those who
think that this practice was inconsistent.
John.
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:36 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
ww:property value='firstHalf' + secondHalf/
I have to agree that the ${} syntax makes this easier Especially where
you want to put in single quotes (see the indexed property example I just
added tonight) and yet... It's too much to change.
-Original Message-
From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
What about
ww:property value=firstHalf${secondHalf}/
? The advantage of the velocity-style escaped syntax is that
it allows for more flexibility, so that the whole thing
doesn't have to get evaluated.
Also, what about tags where what could be displayed might be
evaluated in some cases, but might not in others? How can you
build that logic into the framework so it knows whether to be
evaluated or not? I think the question is not whether we
should always evaluate or not, because that question has been
answered already by use of the triple-quoting; it has been
decided that it is more flexible to allow for values to be
passed into tag attributes that _can_ be evaluated against
the stack but don't always have to be. I agree with that
approach. The question I'm raising is regarding the way the
syntax of those values is structured. I just don't like the
triple-quote approach.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of boxed
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I
like the optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of
writing personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
ww:property value=name/
ww:property value=${name}/
Am I wrong in assuming that simple usage of the variables is
the most common thing in the WW EL? Because if it is then
implementing a more verbose syntax for it is
counterproductive. The rule of thumb is to make the most
common actions simple and intuitive and there is nothing
intuitive about the ${} syntax.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us
help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I've had situations where resolving the name dynamically has been VERY
important (think of a generic configuration editor -- say, something
that edits a .properties file).
As for inconsistencies, those should be addressed. Could you compile a
list of the ones you've found and open a bug?
-Pat
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Patterson
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Is this standard going to be followed for every attribute? Currently,
it
seems that certain attributes are exempt and it is difficult to predict
which. For example, when setting params with ww:param on the BeanTag
the
name is evaluated whereas on the URLTag it is not. This is due to the
ParamTag not evaluating the 'name' attribute but leaving it to the
ParametisedTag to override the addParam() method.
ie
public void addParam(String key, Object value) {
OgnlUtil.setProperty(findString(key), value, bean,
getStack().getContext());
}
If it is decided that all attributes are to be evaluated then this
should be
made consistent by moving the evaluation code into the ParamTag.
Otherwise,
if this selective evaluation is to be kept then I suggest some naming
standard is used and well documented.
Personally I had no problems with the old WW2 practice of not evaluating
'name' attributes. I have to struggle to think of a situation where
evaluating any 'name' attribute is useful. But I can understand those
who
think that this practice was inconsistent.
John.
- Original Message -
From: Jason Carreira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:36 AM
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
ww:property value='firstHalf' + secondHalf/
I have to agree that the ${} syntax makes this easier Especially
where
you want to put in single quotes (see the indexed property example I
just
added tonight) and yet... It's too much to change.
-Original Message-
From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
What about
ww:property value=firstHalf${secondHalf}/
? The advantage of the velocity-style escaped syntax is that
it allows for more flexibility, so that the whole thing
doesn't have to get evaluated.
Also, what about tags where what could be displayed might be
evaluated in some cases, but might not in others? How can you
build that logic into the framework so it knows whether to be
evaluated or not? I think the question is not whether we
should always evaluate or not, because that question has been
answered already by use of the triple-quoting; it has been
decided that it is more flexible to allow for values to be
passed into tag attributes that _can_ be evaluated against
the stack but don't always have to be. I agree with that
approach. The question I'm raising is regarding the way the
syntax of those values is structured. I just don't like the
triple-quote approach.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of boxed
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I
like the optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of
writing personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
ww:property value=name/
ww:property value=${name}/
Am I wrong in assuming that simple usage of the variables is
the most common thing in the WW EL? Because if it is then
implementing a more verbose syntax for it is
counterproductive. The rule of thumb is to make the most
common actions simple and intuitive and there is nothing
intuitive about the ${} syntax.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us
help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Hmm this is pretty interesting. Id like to hear the opinion from the
1.4 guys on this as well.
I for one dispise the ${} JSTL/whatever syntax above all else. It's just
plain retarded. Now, I realize that having to put ' around strings can
be seen as annoying (although I find the term tripleqouting to be
somewhat misleading), but a way around that could be to introduce a more
obvious syntax like String(my literal string). This is to me much better
than the JSTL way where I have to put ${} around all variables.
Introducing the JSTL syntax will lead to MORE typing, not less.
Maybe the EL parser should be more intelligent with this though. If you
write: ww:property value=foo bar/ it is obvious that this is not a
valid variable name, so the page could just return a big and obvious
error message. This later approach is also backwards compatible.
Anders Hovmller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I suppose retarded is in the eye of the beholder...:)
I don't know about it from a JSTL point of view, but velocity uses this
syntax, as does the evaluation that goes on in the xwork config file, as
does Ant, etc. I find it to be very clear. In brackets led by a $, this is
a variable that should be evaluated. As for your suggestion, I'm not sure,
as I can see how certain things can be obvious to a person, but not easy to
make obvious for a machine.
I do like the idea of allowing the user to determine which method to use,
though.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boxed
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Hmm
this is pretty interesting. Id like to hear the opinion from the
1.4 guys on this as well.
I for one dispise the ${} JSTL/whatever syntax above all else. It's just
plain retarded. Now, I realize that having to put ' around strings can be
seen as annoying (although I find the term tripleqouting to be somewhat
misleading), but a way around that could be to introduce a more obvious
syntax like String(my literal string). This is to me much better than the
JSTL way where I have to put ${} around all variables.
Introducing the JSTL syntax will lead to MORE typing, not less.
Maybe the EL parser should be more intelligent with this though. If you
write: ww:property value=foo bar/ it is obvious that this is not a valid
variable name, so the page could just return a big and obvious error
message. This later approach is also backwards compatible.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it...
-Original Message-
From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I suppose retarded is in the eye of the beholder...:)
I don't know about it from a JSTL point of view, but velocity
uses this syntax, as does the evaluation that goes on in the
xwork config file, as does Ant, etc. I find it to be very
clear. In brackets led by a $, this is a variable that
should be evaluated. As for your suggestion, I'm not sure,
as I can see how certain things can be obvious to a person,
but not easy to make obvious for a machine.
I do like the idea of allowing the user to determine which
method to use, though.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of boxed
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 8:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Patrick Lightbody wrote:
Hmm... this is pretty interesting. I'd like to hear the
opinion from the
1.4 guys on this as well.
I for one dispise the ${} JSTL/whatever syntax above all
else. It's just plain retarded. Now, I realize that having to
put ' around strings can be seen as annoying (although I find
the term tripleqouting to be somewhat misleading), but a
way around that could be to introduce a more obvious syntax
like String(my literal string). This is to me much better
than the JSTL way where I have to put ${} around all variables.
Introducing the JSTL syntax will lead to MORE typing, not less.
Maybe the EL parser should be more intelligent with this
though. If you
write: ww:property value=foo bar/ it is obvious that this
is not a valid variable name, so the page could just return a
big and obvious error message. This later approach is also
backwards compatible.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us
help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Jason Carreira wrote: I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it... Definitely agree. Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs to be merged into one big app. Oh that won't work because we used optional method Foo, whereas you used Bar is NOT a good situation. Said it before, and will say it again: What makes a framework powerful is not what it allows, but what it does not allow. This is one of those cases where this is really important to remember. /Rickard --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
What would be realy nice is if the JSTL's EL had ben written with extensibility in mind to begin with, a lot like what Joe Walnes ended up putting into the FormTags project. What worked there is that you had a ww: prefix to specify that the formtags were to use the expression language for webwork, and other prefixes could have been supported as well. I tried to get the JSTL to work this way, but it didn't quite work out the way I wanted (i.e., they decided that nobody needed such a feature, and handed it off to you guys.) It still might be workable from webwork's perspective to use that kind of prefix idea. On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, [ISO-8859-1] Rickard Öberg wrote: Jason Carreira wrote: I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and use it... Definitely agree. Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs to be merged into one big app. Oh that won't work because we used optional method Foo, whereas you used Bar is NOT a good situation. Said it before, and will say it again: What makes a framework powerful is not what it allows, but what it does not allow. This is one of those cases where this is really important to remember. /Rickard --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- Joseph B. Ottinger http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant[EMAIL PROTECTED] J2EE Editor - Java Developer's Journal [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I like the
optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rickard Öberg
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Jason Carreira wrote:
I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets choose one and
use it...
Definitely agree.
Think about the case where many components/projects using WebWork needs to
be merged into one big app. Oh that won't work because we used optional
method Foo, whereas you used Bar is NOT a good situation.
Said it before, and will say it again:
What makes a framework powerful is not what it allows, but what it does not
allow.
This is one of those cases where this is really important to remember.
/Rickard
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I like the
optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing
personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
ww:property value=name/
ww:property value=${name}/
Am I wrong in assuming that simple usage of the variables is the most
common thing in the WW EL? Because if it is then implementing a more
verbose syntax for it is counterproductive. The rule of thumb is to make
the most common actions simple and intuitive and there is nothing
intuitive about the ${} syntax.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
boxed wrote:
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I
like the
optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing
personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
ww:property value=name/
ww:property value=${name}/
Am I wrong in assuming that simple usage of the variables is the most
common thing in the WW EL? Because if it is then implementing a more
verbose syntax for it is counterproductive. The rule of thumb is to make
the most common actions simple and intuitive and there is nothing
intuitive about the ${} syntax.
Right. In Velocity the other way makes sense because the $ is used in
plain HTML, i.e. comparing:
ww:property value=name/
${name}
--
But when comparing between the alternatives as above, I think it's
better to use the non-$ approach.
/Rickard
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Well, I would be with you on that (as it's more apparent what you're expecting to be
evaluated) but it won't fly for backward compatibility
-Original Message-
From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The
reason I like the optional syntax is solely for backwards
compatibility.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rickard Öberg
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Jason Carreira wrote:
I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets
choose one
and
use it...
Definitely agree.
Think about the case where many components/projects using
WebWork needs to be merged into one big app. Oh that won't
work because we used optional method Foo, whereas you used
Bar is NOT a good situation.
Said it before, and will say it again:
What makes a framework powerful is not what it allows, but
what it does not allow.
This is one of those cases where this is really important to remember.
/Rickard
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us
help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
OK -- let's just end this discussion. It's not going to change for the
2.0 release :P
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jason Carreira
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Well, I would be with you on that (as it's more apparent what you're
expecting to be evaluated) but it won't fly for backward compatibility
-Original Message-
From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The
reason I like the optional syntax is solely for backwards
compatibility.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rickard Öberg
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Jason Carreira wrote:
I really dislike the option of which syntax to use... Lets
choose one
and
use it...
Definitely agree.
Think about the case where many components/projects using
WebWork needs to be merged into one big app. Oh that won't
work because we used optional method Foo, whereas you used
Bar is NOT a good situation.
Said it before, and will say it again:
What makes a framework powerful is not what it allows, but
what it does not allow.
This is one of those cases where this is really important to remember.
/Rickard
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us
help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
What about
ww:property value=firstHalf${secondHalf}/
? The advantage of the velocity-style escaped syntax is that it allows for
more flexibility, so that the whole thing doesn't have to get evaluated.
Also, what about tags where what could be displayed might be evaluated in
some cases, but might not in others? How can you build that logic into the
framework so it knows whether to be evaluated or not? I think the question
is not whether we should always evaluate or not, because that question has
been answered already by use of the triple-quoting; it has been decided
that it is more flexible to allow for values to be passed into tag
attributes that _can_ be evaluated against the stack but don't always have
to be. I agree with that approach. The question I'm raising is regarding the
way the syntax of those values is structured. I just don't like the
triple-quote approach.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of boxed
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Drew McAuliffe wrote:
I agree, and I think that it should be the ${} syntax. The reason I
like the optional syntax is solely for backwards compatibility.
I don't see why you are using java if you prefer that way of writing
personally.
Let's compare the alternaitves:
ww:property value=name/
ww:property value=${name}/
Am I wrong in assuming that simple usage of the variables is the most common
thing in the WW EL? Because if it is then implementing a more verbose syntax
for it is counterproductive. The rule of thumb is to make the most common
actions simple and intuitive and there is nothing intuitive about the ${}
syntax.
Anders Hovmöller
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
___
Opensymphony-webwork mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Hmm this is pretty interesting. Id
like to hear the opinion from the 1.4 guys on this as well.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Drew McAuliffe
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
11:32 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
One thing to keep in mind
is that a velocity-style syntax to represent what will be evaluated is
consistent with how stack evaluations are performed against data in the xwork
config file. In that file, if you want the action result or result path to be dynamic,
you do the ${dynamicValue} trick. It would be REALLY nice if the tags and
velocity stuff worked the same way, so that the same syntax is used throughout
the framework. Perhaps the manner in which evaluation is performed could be
switched via a webwork.properties setting, so that with one setting, you do it
with the triple-quote (for backwards compatibility) and another way, you do it
with velocity-style ${} syntax.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Patrick Lightbody
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
5:16 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
Well, this is to be
compatible with 1.x so I think the 1.x guys should get involved in the
discussion at this point
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Douglass
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
1:32 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
I
couldn't agree more. I've always found the triple-quoting ugly... makes my brain
go all scrambled eggs.
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Drew McAuliffe
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
8:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
I kind
of agree. I think triple-quoting simple parameters like name is
kind of silly. In fact, I've never really liked the triple-quoting much at all
(it seems unwieldy to me), though I understand the need for it. To me, it might
be easier to just ditch the whole triple-quote thing and do the evaluation
velocity style, with a ${} combination indicating something that should be
evaluated (e.g., name=someName value=${evaluateThis}).
Though of course I'd expect that to be controversial
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Patterson
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
6:38 AM
To: Webwork
Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness
- evaluated tag attributes
Hi,
I have just run my app with the
release candidate and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the
tag attributes to use single quotes for literals. I am thinking that in
many instances, evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful.
For example, the Bean tag has an attribute 'name' for the name of the class to
instantiate. This is now treated as an OGNL _expression_ and evaluated to
derive the name of the class to use. OGNL madness!
In 99% of cases it seems that this
attribute does not need to be evaluated. Forcing the developer to
triple quote values most of the time will lead to annoying, hard to
spot, errors (and already has for me). What may have been a step forward
for compatibility has IMHO been a large step backwards in usability.
So what I am suggesting is that we
only evaluate attributes where that would be the expected common usage.
Wewould need touse a standard way of naming literal expressions
that areNOT treated as OGNL expressions. For example, attributes
called 'name' could be treated as literals but passed through the TextUtil
thing (so you can use name=${first}-${second}).
Attributes called value
on the other hand are often variant and therefore would make sense to evaluate
them. You would then have to triple quote them to use a
literal. For those who think that this would break consistency, consider
that not all attributes are currently evaluated (eg Iterator status, Set
name). So in fact, introducing such a naming standard would increase
consistency (maybe at the expense of backward compatibility)
John
[OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Hi,
I have just run my app with the release candidate
and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the tag attributes to
use single quotes for literals. I am thinking that in many instances,
evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful. For example, the
Bean tag has an attribute 'name' for the name of the class to instantiate.
This is now treated as an OGNL _expression_ and evaluated to derive the name of
the class to use. OGNL madness!
In 99% of cases it seems that this attribute does
not need to be evaluated. Forcing the developer to "triple quote" values
most of the time will lead to annoying, hard to spot, errors (and already has
for me). What may have been a step forward for compatibility has IMHO been
a large step backwards in usability.
So what I am suggesting is that we only evaluate
attributes where that would be the expected common usage. Wewould need touse a standard way of naming
literal expressions that areNOT treated as OGNL expressions. For
example, attributes called 'name' could be treated as literals but passed
through the TextUtil thing (so you can use
name="${first}-${second}").
Attributes called "value" on the other hand are
often variant and therefore would make sense to evaluate them. You would
then have to "triple quote" them to use a literal. For those who think
that this would break consistency, consider that not all attributes are
currently evaluated (eg Iterator status, Set name). So in fact,
introducing such a naming standard would increase consistency (maybe at the
expense of backward compatibility)
John
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I kind of agree. I think triple-quoting simple parameters
like "name" is kind of silly. In fact, I've never really liked the
triple-quoting much at all (it seems unwieldy to me), though I understand the
need for it. To me, it might be easier to just ditch the whole triple-quote
thing and do the evaluation velocity style, with a ${} combination indicating
something that should be evaluated (e.g., name="someName"
value="${evaluateThis}"). Though of course I'd expect that to be
controversial
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John PattersonSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:38
AMTo: WebworkSubject: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness -
evaluated tag attributes
Hi,
I have just run my app with the release candidate
and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the tag attributes to
use single quotes for literals. I am thinking that in many instances,
evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful. For example, the
Bean tag has an attribute 'name' for the name of the class to instantiate.
This is now treated as an OGNL _expression_ and evaluated to derive the name of
the class to use. OGNL madness!
In 99% of cases it seems that this attribute does
not need to be evaluated. Forcing the developer to "triple quote" values
most of the time will lead to annoying, hard to spot, errors (and already has
for me). What may have been a step forward for compatibility has IMHO been
a large step backwards in usability.
So what I am suggesting is that we only evaluate
attributes where that would be the expected common usage. Wewould need touse a standard way of naming
literal expressions that areNOT treated as OGNL expressions. For
example, attributes called 'name' could be treated as literals but passed
through the TextUtil thing (so you can use
name="${first}-${second}").
Attributes called "value" on the other hand are
often variant and therefore would make sense to evaluate them. You would
then have to "triple quote" them to use a literal. For those who think
that this would break consistency, consider that not all attributes are
currently evaluated (eg Iterator status, Set name). So in fact,
introducing such a naming standard would increase consistency (maybe at the
expense of backward compatibility)
John
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I
couldn't agree more. I've always found the triple-quoting ugly... makes my brain
go all scrambled eggs.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
Drew McAuliffeSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:05
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
I kind of agree. I think triple-quoting simple parameters
like "name" is kind of silly. In fact, I've never really liked the
triple-quoting much at all (it seems unwieldy to me), though I understand the
need for it. To me, it might be easier to just ditch the whole triple-quote
thing and do the evaluation velocity style, with a ${} combination indicating
something that should be evaluated (e.g., name="someName"
value="${evaluateThis}"). Though of course I'd expect that to be
controversial
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John PattersonSent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:38
AMTo: WebworkSubject: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness -
evaluated tag attributes
Hi,
I have just run my app with the release candidate
and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the tag attributes to
use single quotes for literals. I am thinking that in many instances,
evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful. For example,
the Bean tag has an attribute 'name' for the name of the class to
instantiate. This is now treated as an OGNL _expression_ and evaluated to
derive the name of the class to use. OGNL madness!
In 99% of cases it seems that this attribute does
not need to be evaluated. Forcing the developer to "triple quote" values
most of the time will lead to annoying, hard to spot, errors (and already has
for me). What may have been a step forward for compatibility has IMHO
been a large step backwards in usability.
So what I am suggesting is that we only evaluate
attributes where that would be the expected common usage. Wewould need touse a standard way of naming
literal expressions that areNOT treated as OGNL expressions. For
example, attributes called 'name' could be treated as literals but passed
through the TextUtil thing (so you can use
name="${first}-${second}").
Attributes called "value" on the other hand are
often variant and therefore would make sense to evaluate them. You would
then have to "triple quote" them to use a literal. For those who think
that this would break consistency, consider that not all attributes are
currently evaluated (eg Iterator status, Set name). So in fact,
introducing such a naming standard would increase consistency (maybe at the
expense of backward compatibility)
John
RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness - evaluated tag attributes
Well, this is to be compatible with 1.x
so I think the 1.x guys should get involved in the discussion at this point
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Douglass
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
1:32 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
I couldn't agree more.
I've always found the triple-quoting ugly... makes my brain go all scrambled
eggs.
-Original
Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Drew McAuliffe
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
8:05 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] OGNL
madness - evaluated tag attributes
I kind of agree. I think
triple-quoting simple parameters like name is kind of silly. In
fact, I've never really liked the triple-quoting much at all (it seems unwieldy
to me), though I understand the need for it. To me, it might be easier to just
ditch the whole triple-quote thing and do the evaluation velocity style, with a
${} combination indicating something that should be evaluated (e.g.,
name=someName value=${evaluateThis}). Though of course
I'd expect that to be controversial
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Patterson
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003
6:38 AM
To: Webwork
Subject: [OS-webwork] OGNL madness
- evaluated tag attributes
Hi,
I have just run my app with the
release candidate and am in the process of changing many (but not all) of the
tag attributes to use single quotes for literals. I am thinking that in
many instances, evaluating the attribute tag is not really very helpful.
For example, the Bean tag has an attribute 'name' for the name of the class to
instantiate. This is now treated as an OGNL _expression_ and evaluated to
derive the name of the class to use. OGNL madness!
In 99% of cases it seems that this
attribute does not need to be evaluated. Forcing the developer to
triple quote values most of the time will lead to annoying, hard to
spot, errors (and already has for me). What may have been a step forward
for compatibility has IMHO been a large step backwards in usability.
So what I am suggesting is that we
only evaluate attributes where that would be the expected common usage.
Wewould need touse a standard way of naming literal expressions
that areNOT treated as OGNL expressions. For example, attributes
called 'name' could be treated as literals but passed through the TextUtil
thing (so you can use name=${first}-${second}).
Attributes called value
on the other hand are often variant and therefore would make sense to evaluate
them. You would then have to triple quote them to use a
literal. For those who think that this would break consistency, consider
that not all attributes are currently evaluated (eg Iterator status, Set
name). So in fact, introducing such a naming standard would increase
consistency (maybe at the expense of backward compatibility)
John
