[T5] Removing page name shortening?
Hello. I can really speak from position of someone who just is learning Tapestry 5 for first time, and from what Kevind Menard mentioned in few mails before, I can really see page name shortening as nothing but confusion and complication. Referencing pages is quite straightforward, and one just have to look what sub-package it is conatined in, and what name of page class is, and ta-dah! Mabe this sufix stripping (in case when suffix is same as package) would not bother me so much if it is optional, although I would still see no reason to complicate perfectly straightforward and simple naming just for sake of few letters, but since it is mandatory, I really have to think for a moment when referencing them in PageLinks for instance. Moreover, I stated case in my previous mail when I had class: com.mycompany.myapp.pages.users.Users and when Tapestry reported error because I should reference users/ instead of users/Users :( Opinions ? Regards, Vjeran - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] Removing page name shortening?
Hi Vjeran, I just want to clarify. I'm not against name shortening in general. I actually think it's a very good idea. In T4, all of my page names essentially match my class names (although, this was configurable via the page spec and I do take advantage of that on occasion) and the result is beastly URLs. For internal sites, it's really not a problem. For public ones, it's a pain in the neck. So, I generally like what T5 has done. What I raised as issues I think are just artifacts of an alpha codebase. I'd hope that those issues would be addressed before a public release. Once fixed, I largely see your problems going away. So long as you always use one of the link components, you really shouldn't worry that much about how Tapestry names the URLs (granted, there are exceptions for acegi and what not). I guess having an option to disable the feature wouldn't hurt any, but I think you're misdiagnosing the problem. -- Kevin On 11/15/07 12:48 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vjeran Marcinko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. I can really speak from position of someone who just is learning Tapestry 5 for first time, and from what Kevind Menard mentioned in few mails before, I can really see page name shortening as nothing but confusion and complication. Referencing pages is quite straightforward, and one just have to look what sub-package it is conatined in, and what name of page class is, and ta-dah! Mabe this sufix stripping (in case when suffix is same as package) would not bother me so much if it is optional, although I would still see no reason to complicate perfectly straightforward and simple naming just for sake of few letters, but since it is mandatory, I really have to think for a moment when referencing them in PageLinks for instance. Moreover, I stated case in my previous mail when I had class: com.mycompany.myapp.pages.users.Users and when Tapestry reported error because I should reference users/ instead of users/Users :( Opinions ? Regards, Vjeran - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [T5] Removing page name shortening?
- Original Message - From: Kevin Menard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: users@tapestry.apache.org Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [T5] Removing page name shortening? going away. So long as you always use one of the link components, you really shouldn't worry that much about how Tapestry names the URLs (granted, there are exceptions for acegi and what not). Hi. I guess you are refering to ActionLinks and possibility of specifying page class or instance as return valu inside event methods. That way Tapestry generates URL containing proper page name. But thing is that Tapestry 5 introduced this double-request action concept (original request and client redirect request) to solve back/refresh/bookmarking problems, and thus for a lot of links ActionLink adds overhead of one additional request since they just need to invoke page rendering (with possibly activation context values) and not some action being performed before that. Thus in these cases PageLink is the right one, and it requires page name specified in template. Anyway, you mentioned that public sites require this short page names. OK, I have to admit I have almost no experience here since I produced always internal web apps. Yes, maybe configuration flag would be nice. Regards, Vjeran - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
