I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm just not understanding you.
If I use " and Foo was defined as a
string, the end result is a visible string in the page. I have trouble
perceiving that as a definition, while it naturally fits my concept of
"insert."
Perhaps your concern is that there might be some inde
Sorry for not writing, but a job "storm" hit me, and I am changing place
of work (and town).
Anyway, comments are below.
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
I like the idea that a tag that displays something on
the page should indicate so in the tag name. Maybe we need to clarify
the
difference between
On 1/12/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that we need to work on simplifying the tags, but I'm not sure
whether or not functions are the way to go.
Well, I'd definitely say that my interest in functions is as much about
"hey, don't forget they're out there" as "we really
Joe Germuska wrote:
It still seems kind of verbose. How do people feel about using JSTL
functions? I personally have really found them a good element in the
toolkit, but I haven't seen many open source projects include them
alongside
custom tags.
I think this below is mich nicer:
The p
On 1/12/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should have more discussion before reverting anything, because
I
feel pretty strongly about naming, and I feel like what is there now is
substantially more clear than what was there before.
+1. Let's get on the same page before
Joe Germuska wrote:
Sorry, I suppose that was kind of hasty of me.
I urged you to do it too. . .the great thing about source control is
that we can always roll back :)
But I have to say that I
totally disagree that the behavior of the tiles:attribute tag as it is
written is defining anyt
Sorry, I suppose that was kind of hasty of me. But I have to say that I
totally disagree that the behavior of the tiles:attribute tag as it is
written is defining anything. It is causing content to appear in the page,
and therefore should have a name like insertXXX
I think there was some kind o
David H. DeWolf ha scritto:
2) rename tiles:put to tiles:putAttribute
I don't know, if you rename you should rename also the
element in the Tiles configuration file, they should be the same.
Antonio
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
On 1/11/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
have you tried:
Wow, I thought (from looking at the FAQ) that this defined a *new*
attribute, not inserted one already defined.
The "insert" and "define" verbs are both corrects because the tag
"inserts" (i
Antonio Petrelli ha scritto:
Hey hey wait I minute!
Too late :-) Hey Joe, why did you commit your ideas without asking the
author (i.e. me) about the names of those tags?
There was a discussion some time ago on Shale users list about naming
confusion (someone used attributes in non-layout pag
David H. DeWolf ha scritto:
BTW, I think what we though tiles:attribute would be, is actually
tiles:put and tiles:putList. You'd think that I'd remember that.
I'd propose we:
1) rename tiles:attribute to tiles:insertAttribute
2) rename tiles:put to tiles:putAttribute
Hey hey wait I minute!
Have at it, it's the best way to get back up to speed :)
If you need, ping me with questions. . .
David
Joe Germuska wrote:
On 1/11/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, I think what we though tiles:attribute would be, is actually
tiles:put and tiles:putList. You'd think that
On 1/11/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, I think what we though tiles:attribute would be, is actually
tiles:put and tiles:putList. You'd think that I'd remember that.
I'd propose we:
1) rename tiles:attribute to tiles:insertAttribute
+1
2) rename tiles:put to tiles:putA
BTW, I think what we though tiles:attribute would be, is actually
tiles:put and tiles:putList. You'd think that I'd remember that.
I'd propose we:
1) rename tiles:attribute to tiles:insertAttribute
2) rename tiles:put to tiles:putAttribute
I don't really like the sounds of tiles:putAttributeL
that's what I would have thought too :), I think we definately need a
rename. I was looking for the insertAttribute tag in the tld when I found:
attribute
org.apache.tiles.taglib.AttributeTag
JSP
On 1/11/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
have you tried:
Wow, I thought (from looking at the FAQ) that this defined a *new*
attribute, not inserted one already defined.
Greg
Joe Germuska wrote:
On 1/11/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you not just use:
Nope. "According to the TLD or the tag file, attribute template is
mandatory for tag insertTemplate"
And the value of template is passed straight on through to a
RequestDispatcher...
ha
On 1/11/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I inferred the intent. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but I
really haven't thought about it much. I agree there was lots of room for
simplification and clarification in Tiles, so I won't say it was the wrong
choice. Besides, simplif
On 1/11/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you not just use:
Nope. "According to the TLD or the tag file, attribute template is
mandatory for tag insertTemplate"
And the value of template is passed straight on through to a
RequestDispatcher...
I haven't used the new tag
On 1/11/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm finally getting back up to speed with Tiles 2 and Struts 2. I'm
really
pleased to see the kinds of cleanup that Tiles has gotten.
However, I'm mildly "concerned" that what used to be in my JSP as this:
Now looks something like this:
I'm finally getting back up to speed with Tiles 2 and Struts 2. I'm really
pleased to see the kinds of cleanup that Tiles has gotten.
However, I'm mildly "concerned" that what used to be in my JSP as this:
Now looks something like this:
Did I miss something in the translation? Ah, I see
21 matches
Mail list logo
