On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On 1/3/06, Giacomo Pati [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's oppinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of how to write a component. I'd
say in
this area we need a revolution instead of an
On Dec 30, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Seriously, I agree that writing less code is good, but not at the
price of too black magic implying weaker contracts.
Agreed. To achieve the goal of less code would require major
overhauls of the entire system.
Yes. I think Cocoon
On Dec 30, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Aren't you tired of implementing a service/dispose combo for each of
your components over and over again? Now, actually, I am. Big time.
If you look at several of our components, they do something like this:
class MyComponent implements
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:18 AM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Glen Ezkovich wrote:
On Nov 21, 2005, at 12:16 AM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Now as 2.1.8 is out, we should think about a 2.2 release. I
think for a
2.2 release we should at least finish the following things:
-
On Nov 22, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Ezkovich Glen wrote:
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:18 AM, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Glen Ezkovich wrote:
...
This is what I thought. I was in effect questioning wether these
new features are ready to go. My concern
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:26 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Jorg Heymans wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
The initial foo.bar:input proposal *structurally* prevents name
all crispy clear now.
It was clear then. As always there are trade offs. In this case Its
between possible naming conflicts and
On Nov 6, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Jean-Baptiste Quenot wrote:
* Sylvain Wallez:
The main point being that this rule *must* ensure that
generated IDs can never conflict with widget full names (e.g.
foo.bar-input would potentially conflict with a bar-input
