Re: On $content$ again
Alex Kotchnev wrote: I also found this solution : http://www.nabble.com/Re-%3A-Re-%3A-T5%3A-Layout-question-to16448904.html#a16448904, but life just becomes a little uglier with it. I see that we're jumping through these hoops to prevent template previewability and so if it becomes too much of a hassle to deal with I can scrap previewability. However, it's such a pity when it was nice and elegant in T4, and not it's a little worse. What are the problems with the last option? You just mark tag with t:type="layout" and wrap the $content$ area with name="body">...page content Simple. Inside the layout you use instead of and that's all (there "body" is the component parameter). Like this: Layout.tml ... ... .. Page1.html: ... ... Foo, bar baz .. -- WBR, Ivan S. Dubrov - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] t5components 0.5.14 is now available for Tapestry 5.0.14
sorry, cant agree, all is running fine 2008/8/16 Ralf Edmund Stranzenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > just to let you know: > > The projects web-page as referenced by zje google code start page > http://87.193.218.134:8080/t5components/index.html > seems to be down at the moment. > > Regards, > Ralf E. Stranzenbach > > Am 16.08.2008 um 01:13 schrieb Sven Homburg: > > > Hi there, >> >> t5components 0.5.14 is now available for Tapestry 5.0.14 >> with some fixes and new features >> >> project page http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com >> >> -- >> with regards >> Sven Homburg >> http://www.chenillekit.org >> http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- with regards Sven Homburg http://www.chenillekit.org http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com
Re: [ANN] t5components 0.5.14 is now available for Tapestry 5.0.14
Hi, just to let you know: The projects web-page as referenced by zje google code start page http://87.193.218.134:8080/t5components/index.html seems to be down at the moment. Regards, Ralf E. Stranzenbach Am 16.08.2008 um 01:13 schrieb Sven Homburg: Hi there, t5components 0.5.14 is now available for Tapestry 5.0.14 with some fixes and new features project page http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com -- with regards Sven Homburg http://www.chenillekit.org http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] Loops - implicit value?
Hi,
1. This would be nice, and it works for simple properties with the var:
prefix. It doesn't work with property expressions, though, because there
needs to be a property in the page for it to work.
That said, I almost always need the value of a loop in my page class.
And with @Property it's really just a single field anyway.
2. No, it doesn't need to be. UnclaimedFieldWorker takes care of that.
-Filip
On 2008-08-16 16:11, Richard Hoberman wrote:
Hi
One thing that surprises me about T5 is that I still have to declare methods
in my class for looping.
1. Wouldn't this be more in line with T5's commitment to painless
development to support:
${current.someProperty}
In the cases where it is needed (hardly ever in my experience) the "value"
attribute would still enable another property to be used. My classes seem
to be cluttered with loop fields.
2. Regarding the docs
[http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-core/ref/org/apache/tapestry5/corelib/components/Loop.html]
The NavBar.java example provides a loop field "_pageName", which is not
marked as a property. Would this field need to be cleared via pageDetach to
avoid state hanging around in the pool?
Richard Hoberman
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[T5] Loops - implicit value?
Hi
One thing that surprises me about T5 is that I still have to declare methods
in my class for looping.
1. Wouldn't this be more in line with T5's commitment to painless
development to support:
${current.someProperty}
In the cases where it is needed (hardly ever in my experience) the "value"
attribute would still enable another property to be used. My classes seem
to be cluttered with loop fields.
2. Regarding the docs
[http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-core/ref/org/apache/tapestry5/corelib/components/Loop.html]
The NavBar.java example provides a loop field "_pageName", which is not
marked as a property. Would this field need to be cleared via pageDetach to
avoid state hanging around in the pool?
Richard Hoberman
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-T5--Loops---implicit-value--tp19011764p19011764.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T5 Two action handlers for one component
hi,
I have a component which should react on two types of provided arguments:
one integer and two integers. These are my handler functions:
@OnEvent(component="pager", value="action")
Block onPageChangedExtended(int index, int visiblePage){}
@OnEvent(component="pager", value="action")
Block onPageChanged(int index){ return onPageChangedExtended(index,
0);}
Unfortunately, each time two arguments are provided only the second function
(onPageChanged) is called and in consequence second argument is missed. Why
is it so, and how may I improve my code to handle both actions?
tapestry version: 5.0.14
thanks,
jm.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/T5-Two-action-handlers-for-one-component-tp19009602p19009602.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On $content$ again
I know that this issue was discussed in the past (e.g. http://www.nabble.com/Equivalent-of-jwcid%3D%22%24content%24%22-in-T5-td17581189s302.html#a17581189, http://www.nabble.com/T5-equivalent-of-%24content%24-td9138619s302.html#a9138619) and the conclusion was there currently is no equivalent of jwcid="$content$" from T4. Now, I can understand how the proposed workarounds would work, but I most definitely like being able to annotate a fully working/previewable html page, and make it work in Tapestry without having to gut pretty much the whole thing. Now, here's what I do : Layout component template (it's the regular stuff) , e.g. : Layout.html ... ... .. Page1.html would typically come as a full html doc, now, I only care for the stuff inside of 'content' div. ... ... Foo, bar baz .. If there were a $content$, I'd do something like this in Page1: ... ... Foo, bar baz .. Now, since there is no $content$, I have to either totally gut the previewability of the template: Foo, bar baz Or, I have to do something like this : ... ... Foo, bar baz .. Now, let's admit it, the next to last version is definitely most concise, but kills one of the huge Tapestry perks : previewability. The last version should work (I haven't tried it yet), but man, it's becomes cluttered w/ these "remove" and "container" elements that just clutter things (and mind you, this is a simple layout, if the layout is more complicated it gets even uglier). I also found this solution : http://www.nabble.com/Re-%3A-Re-%3A-T5%3A-Layout-question-to16448904.html#a16448904, but life just becomes a little uglier with it. I see that we're jumping through these hoops to prevent template previewability and so if it becomes too much of a hassle to deal with I can scrap previewability. However, it's such a pity when it was nice and elegant in T4, and not it's a little worse. I also see that there is an idea to have t:container serve almost like $content$ by discarding its parent.. So, I wonder, would there be any possibility of being able to restore the existence of the $content$ component ? Is there something in T5 that makes it impossible technically ? Or is there a phylosophical objection to its existence in the first place ? Any comments ? Thanks, Alex Kotchnev
