Re: Component resolution question
On Oct 16, 2006, at 2:13 PM, andyhot wrote: Here's another: I've seen (and even written) components that provide nicer gui on top of contrib:Table. They all usually define the same component class as contrib:Table does... Interesting, that's the use case I couldn't think of ;) I actually do the same thing (override some contrib components but reuse the class) and still couldn't come up with it. Must... read... more... slowly -Ryan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Component resolution question
Hi Ryan -- Eclipse can look for fully specified names but 'members/Navigation' isn't fully specified. The component specification looks like: @Component(type=member/Navigation) public Navigation getNavigation(); (FYI, in my example I was only giving the full flassname for illustration only) You talk about the ambiguity if the 'type' parameter isn't specified. What ambiguity are you refering to? I haven't encountered a single example of such ambiguity yet. The only case I have heard of is the template-only components. But that isn't an issue for me as those components I specify anonymously in my html template. So in my situation, the type parameter is merely a source of run-time bugs when Tapestry can find a component. -Pat On 10/14/06, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, eclipse will pick up @Component 'type' values during refactoring if you check the Update textual occurrences in comments and strings option when you rename a component class. The bug you illustrate is a good example of why the type parameter should be required, at least for the time being. If the @Component annotation worker could resolve class names as you expect, perhaps making 'type' optional would be nice. Of course, you also wouldn't need to do : @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); as it's no different than: import com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation public abstract Navigation getNavigation(); I think there are more important things to be done in Tap 4.1 and I prefer the predictable behavior of the 'type' parameter (which, as I mentioned, is refactorable in Eclipse) over the more elegant but potentially ambiguous behavior that arises when omitting 'type'. Just my $.02 -Ryan On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Patrick Moore wrote: I would vote just the opposite way. In this case I am returning the exact type that is declared on the abstract method. I am not returning a BaseComponent. I hate the 'type' parameter. It interfers with refactoring because eclipse doesn't know it should do anything with the type parameter. So far 100% of the times where I had to specify the type hasn't needed any clarification. The coding style I am using means that I never use the .jwc/.page files, only annotations. The current behavior points out a Tapestry bug as well. 1. Declare a method: @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); 2. Declare the classes: com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation and com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation 3. Declare the component-class-packages: meta key=org.apache.tapestry.component-class-packages value=com.transparentpolitics.web.components/ If Tapestry looks at the com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation class file, it can see that it has been annotated correctly and it should chose the class, com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation, not com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation. However, Tapestry gets really wigged out and throws this exception: Property navigation has already been accounted for by the element at Annotation @org.apache.tapestry.annotations.Parameter(cache=true, defaultValue=, required=true, name=, aliases=) of public abstract com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.Navigation com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.NonflowBorder.getNavigat ion(). -Pat On 10/13/06, Norbert Sándor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. I would vote a +1 for changing type back to required, mainly because of new users. Discarding type results in less readable code for example when compared to omitting @InjectObject, which has a more implicit meaning. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) This may not be evident for new users, especially when they read in the docs that Tapestry supports pure-java, annotation-only components... IMO Regards, Norbi andyhot wrote: Patrick Moore wrote: To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the _componentResolver on line 390 of org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class name. On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there -- I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only components... their class is BaseComponent. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. type has been made optional to facilitate cases where
Re: Component resolution question
Patrick Moore wrote: Hi Ryan -- Eclipse can look for fully specified names but 'members/Navigation' isn't fully specified. The component specification looks like: @Component(type=member/Navigation) public Navigation getNavigation(); (FYI, in my example I was only giving the full flassname for illustration only) You talk about the ambiguity if the 'type' parameter isn't specified. What ambiguity are you refering to? I haven't encountered a single example of such ambiguity yet. The only case I have heard of is the template-only components. But that isn't an issue for me as those components I specify anonymously in my html template. Here's another: I've seen (and even written) components that provide nicer gui on top of contrib:Table. They all usually define the same component class as contrib:Table does... But this doesn't mean we aren't looking for ways to make this easier for users... We just have to make sure that (given the way things currently work) no problems are introduced - and IMHO this is exactly what will happen if we even try to resolve component types from classes. -- Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr Tapestry / Tacos developer Open Source / J2EE Consulting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Component resolution question
Hi Patrick, I was referring to the class resolution ambiguity you encountered in your Navigation example. Had you specified the 'type' parameter, you would be forced to indicate whether you meant 'Navigation' or 'members/Navigation'. Specifically, I was talking about the ambiguity in the component resolution logic in ComponentAnnotationWorker when you don't specify a 'type' parameter. If you look at the ComponentAnnotationWorker source, you can see that Method.getReturnType().getSimpleName() is used to guess the component type if the 'type' parameter is an empty string. It's sort of a best effort approach, apparently provided as a convenience for those cases where the 'type' parameter is completely redundant with your method's return type. As Andreas mentioned, many components have BaseComponent as their class. Obviously, Tapestry cannot resolve a method return type of BaseComponent to a specific component. In those cases, the behavior is so ambiguous that it's useless. Even when your component has a specific class, you could conceivably have situations where your Tapestry component type differs from the return type of your @Component annotated method (although I can't honestly think of a use-case that makes good sense, even with a component class hierarchy). Having said all that, 'type' is indeed redundant in many cases and it would be great if it there was a better way. In the meantime, I would actually prefer to have only one way to specify the type of a component (not that I'm really complaining about the current component type guessing behavior -- I just probably won't use it). In short, getting rid of the 'type' parameter or significantly changing component resolution logic seems more like a Tap 5 thing and I'm more interested in seeing 4.1 stabilize. Regarding Eclipse refactoring, the 'type' parameter's value does not need to be fully qualified to be detected. For example, the type parameters in the following @Component methods will be updated correctly if you check the Update textual occurrences in comments and strings box: @Component(type = FlushLiquidSystem, bindings = poolSet=prop:poolSet) public abstract FlushLiquidSystem getFlushLiquidSystem(); -- or -- @Component(type = directoryThatDoesNotMatchThePackageName/ FlushLiquidSystem, bindings = poolSet=prop:poolSet) public abstract FlushLiquidSystem getFlushLiquidSystem(); I'm using Eclipse 3.2 and this works for @InjectPage annotations as well. It's obviously not as robust as regular type refactoring and you have to pay attention to the preview, but it does make the process pretty easy. Let me know if your experience is different, because this is an extremely handy feature. I don't mean to dampen your enthusiasm to make improvements and I think everyone has noticed that 'type' feels oddly redundant. It's just that it makes sense when you step back and realize that a Tapestry component type is not the same as Java type, except when it is ;) -Ryan On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Patrick Moore wrote: Hi Ryan -- Eclipse can look for fully specified names but 'members/Navigation' isn't fully specified. The component specification looks like: @Component(type=member/Navigation) public Navigation getNavigation(); (FYI, in my example I was only giving the full flassname for illustration only) You talk about the ambiguity if the 'type' parameter isn't specified. What ambiguity are you refering to? I haven't encountered a single example of such ambiguity yet. The only case I have heard of is the template-only components. But that isn't an issue for me as those components I specify anonymously in my html template. So in my situation, the type parameter is merely a source of run-time bugs when Tapestry can find a component. -Pat On 10/14/06, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, eclipse will pick up @Component 'type' values during refactoring if you check the Update textual occurrences in comments and strings option when you rename a component class. The bug you illustrate is a good example of why the type parameter should be required, at least for the time being. If the @Component annotation worker could resolve class names as you expect, perhaps making 'type' optional would be nice. Of course, you also wouldn't need to do : @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); as it's no different than: import com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation public abstract Navigation getNavigation(); I think there are more important things to be done in Tap 4.1 and I prefer the predictable behavior of the 'type' parameter (which, as I mentioned, is refactorable in Eclipse) over the more elegant but potentially ambiguous behavior that arises when omitting 'type'. Just my $.02 -Ryan On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Patrick Moore wrote: I would vote just the
Re: Component resolution question
Actually, eclipse will pick up @Component 'type' values during refactoring if you check the Update textual occurrences in comments and strings option when you rename a component class. The bug you illustrate is a good example of why the type parameter should be required, at least for the time being. If the @Component annotation worker could resolve class names as you expect, perhaps making 'type' optional would be nice. Of course, you also wouldn't need to do : @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); as it's no different than: import com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation public abstract Navigation getNavigation(); I think there are more important things to be done in Tap 4.1 and I prefer the predictable behavior of the 'type' parameter (which, as I mentioned, is refactorable in Eclipse) over the more elegant but potentially ambiguous behavior that arises when omitting 'type'. Just my $.02 -Ryan On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Patrick Moore wrote: I would vote just the opposite way. In this case I am returning the exact type that is declared on the abstract method. I am not returning a BaseComponent. I hate the 'type' parameter. It interfers with refactoring because eclipse doesn't know it should do anything with the type parameter. So far 100% of the times where I had to specify the type hasn't needed any clarification. The coding style I am using means that I never use the .jwc/.page files, only annotations. The current behavior points out a Tapestry bug as well. 1. Declare a method: @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); 2. Declare the classes: com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation and com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation 3. Declare the component-class-packages: meta key=org.apache.tapestry.component-class-packages value=com.transparentpolitics.web.components/ If Tapestry looks at the com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation class file, it can see that it has been annotated correctly and it should chose the class, com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation, not com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation. However, Tapestry gets really wigged out and throws this exception: Property navigation has already been accounted for by the element at Annotation @org.apache.tapestry.annotations.Parameter(cache=true, defaultValue=, required=true, name=, aliases=) of public abstract com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.Navigation com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.NonflowBorder.getNavigat ion(). -Pat On 10/13/06, Norbert Sándor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. I would vote a +1 for changing type back to required, mainly because of new users. Discarding type results in less readable code for example when compared to omitting @InjectObject, which has a more implicit meaning. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) This may not be evident for new users, especially when they read in the docs that Tapestry supports pure-java, annotation-only components... IMO Regards, Norbi andyhot wrote: Patrick Moore wrote: To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the _componentResolver on line 390 of org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class name. On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there -- I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only components... their class is BaseComponent. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. type has been made optional to facilitate cases where it matches the class name. I believe that's what stated at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry4.1/tapestry-annotations/ index.html If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. In my application file I indicate that the components are in the 'com.transparentpolitics.web.components' directory (or its subdirectories). However, Tap doesn't find components that are in child directories of the 'com ... components' directory. So component references like this: @Component public abstract Navigation getNavigation() don't work but this does work : @Component(type=utils/Navigation) public abstract Navigation getNavigation() (Navigation is 'com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.util.Navigation') Now I don't understand why Tap can't find the
Re: Component resolution question
Patrick Moore wrote: To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the _componentResolver on line 390 of org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class name. On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there -- I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only components... their class is BaseComponent. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. type has been made optional to facilitate cases where it matches the class name. I believe that's what stated at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry4.1/tapestry-annotations/index.html If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. In my application file I indicate that the components are in the 'com.transparentpolitics.web.components' directory (or its subdirectories). However, Tap doesn't find components that are in child directories of the 'com ... components' directory. So component references like this: @Component public abstract Navigation getNavigation() don't work but this does work : @Component(type=utils/Navigation) public abstract Navigation getNavigation() (Navigation is 'com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.util.Navigation') Now I don't understand why Tap can't find the component as the method call returns the exact component class. Is this just a known temporary limit? Or would changing this current behavior to look at the actual class supplied cause problems? I do know that I can list out each child component directory but that has its own problem as there are some cases of duplicate class names. In any case all the information is on that annotated method call. -Pat - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr Tapestry / Tacos developer Open Source / J2EE Consulting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Component resolution question
If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. I would vote a +1 for changing type back to required, mainly because of new users. Discarding type results in less readable code for example when compared to omitting @InjectObject, which has a more implicit meaning. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) This may not be evident for new users, especially when they read in the docs that Tapestry supports pure-java, annotation-only components... IMO Regards, Norbi andyhot wrote: Patrick Moore wrote: To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the _componentResolver on line 390 of org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class name. On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there -- I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only components... their class is BaseComponent. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. type has been made optional to facilitate cases where it matches the class name. I believe that's what stated at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry4.1/tapestry-annotations/index.html If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. In my application file I indicate that the components are in the 'com.transparentpolitics.web.components' directory (or its subdirectories). However, Tap doesn't find components that are in child directories of the 'com ... components' directory. So component references like this: @Component public abstract Navigation getNavigation() don't work but this does work : @Component(type=utils/Navigation) public abstract Navigation getNavigation() (Navigation is 'com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.util.Navigation') Now I don't understand why Tap can't find the component as the method call returns the exact component class. Is this just a known temporary limit? Or would changing this current behavior to look at the actual class supplied cause problems? I do know that I can list out each child component directory but that has its own problem as there are some cases of duplicate class names. In any case all the information is on that annotated method call. -Pat - 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: Component resolution question
I would vote just the opposite way. In this case I am returning the exact type that is declared on the abstract method. I am not returning a BaseComponent. I hate the 'type' parameter. It interfers with refactoring because eclipse doesn't know it should do anything with the type parameter. So far 100% of the times where I had to specify the type hasn't needed any clarification. The coding style I am using means that I never use the .jwc/.page files, only annotations. The current behavior points out a Tapestry bug as well. 1. Declare a method: @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); 2. Declare the classes: com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation and com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation 3. Declare the component-class-packages: meta key=org.apache.tapestry.component-class-packages value=com.transparentpolitics.web.components/ If Tapestry looks at the com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation class file, it can see that it has been annotated correctly and it should chose the class, com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation, not com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation. However, Tapestry gets really wigged out and throws this exception: Property navigation has already been accounted for by the element at Annotation @org.apache.tapestry.annotations.Parameter(cache=true, defaultValue=, required=true, name=, aliases=) of public abstract com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.Navigation com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.NonflowBorder.getNavigation(). -Pat On 10/13/06, Norbert Sándor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. I would vote a +1 for changing type back to required, mainly because of new users. Discarding type results in less readable code for example when compared to omitting @InjectObject, which has a more implicit meaning. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) This may not be evident for new users, especially when they read in the docs that Tapestry supports pure-java, annotation-only components... IMO Regards, Norbi andyhot wrote: Patrick Moore wrote: To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the _componentResolver on line 390 of org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class name. On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there -- I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only components... their class is BaseComponent. So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. type has been made optional to facilitate cases where it matches the class name. I believe that's what stated at http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry4.1/tapestry-annotations/index.html If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. In my application file I indicate that the components are in the 'com.transparentpolitics.web.components' directory (or its subdirectories). However, Tap doesn't find components that are in child directories of the 'com ... components' directory. So component references like this: @Component public abstract Navigation getNavigation() don't work but this does work : @Component(type=utils/Navigation) public abstract Navigation getNavigation() (Navigation is 'com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.util.Navigation') Now I don't understand why Tap can't find the component as the method call returns the exact component class. Is this just a known temporary limit? Or would changing this current behavior to look at the actual class supplied cause problems? I do know that I can list out each child component directory but that has its own problem as there are some cases of duplicate class names. In any case all the information is on that annotated method call. -Pat - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
