On 7/10/07, David Durham, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My example is kind of weak because the argument to the style attribute
could easily be conditionalized, thereby avoiding the id issue.
Nonetheless, I think struts 2 tags should use something besides "id"
across the board, except in cases wh
On 7/7/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Move "id" attribute to UIBean so it is in all UI tags
* Remove "id" from tags that are neither UIBean nor ContextBean (like
Property for example)
I think this still leaves the issue with jspx. Say that I have the
same html element within
I committed the changes on rv 554226, the end result is something like:
* New base class ContextBean which defines the var attribute (and "id" for
backward compatibility). Tags that put values in the stack inherit from it
* Move "id" attribute to UIBean so it is in all UI tags
* Remove "id" from
Well, as there are no objections we'll go with "var", here is the jira
ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-2027
musachy
On 6/28/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What would be the best way to get to an agreem
I'd like to add to the non-voting consensus with my approval of going
with "var" ;)
--
James Mitchell
On Jun 28, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a
vote?
I
+1 for var. id is special and shouldn't be used -- it even has its own
W3C spec.
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a vote?
I tend to feel that we're a bit too vote-happy around here, s
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a vote?
I tend to feel that we're a bit too vote-happy around here, so I'd prefer to
see us reach consensus instead, if we can.
So far, I haven't heard anyone voice objectio
I'm going to be substantially offline for the next week. Count this a vote
for "var."
Joe
On 6/28/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a vote?
musachy
On 6/28/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 6/27/0
What would be the best way to get to an agreement on this? cast a vote?
musachy
On 6/28/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I have been very absentee from Struts discussions, but I took a
> minute to review this one...
>
>
On 6/27/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I have been very absentee from Struts discussions, but I took a
minute to review this one...
Acknowledging that consistency (between s:set, s:url, s:bean, etc) is good
but that "id" has specific semantics for HTML markup, what about usi
That's an alternative also, given that people mix JSTL with struts tags it
would definitely help. I removed the "id" property from the tags that do not
use it so that will help a little bit.
musachy
On 6/27/07, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I have been very absentee from Strut
Sorry, I have been very absentee from Struts discussions, but I took a
minute to review this one...
Acknowledging that consistency (between s:set, s:url, s:bean, etc) is good
but that "id" has specific semantics for HTML markup, what about using "var"
for the tags which put a value into a scope,
Any other ideas/opinions on this?
musachy
On 6/16/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have to options:
1. use "id" in "set", and keep the other tags as they are (using "id"),
with its side effects (jspx)
2. leave set as it is (using name), and deprecate "id" on the other tags
an
We have to options:
1. use "id" in "set", and keep the other tags as they are (using "id"), with
its side effects (jspx)
2. leave set as it is (using name), and deprecate "id" on the other tags and
use "name" instead ("bean" would be an special case)
right? I'd say 2 would be better but it would
On 6/14/07, David Durham, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also:
>
> action,
> date
> text
Still a problem, IMO, because if you're someone that writes .jspx
documents, you can only use a tag that uses id + value stack key
combination in, a
On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also:
action,
date
text
Still a problem, IMO, because if you're someone that writes .jspx
documents, you can only use a tag that uses id + value stack key
combination in, at most, one place within a document, and still have a
valid jspx.
Also:
action,
date
text
musachy
On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now I'm not convinced about keeping the name attribute on set as there are
more tags besides url and bean using the "id" attribute:
append
generator
iterator
merge
musachy
On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[
Now I'm not convinced about keeping the name attribute on set as there are
more tags besides url and bean using the "id" attribute:
append
generator
iterator
merge
musachy
On 6/14/07, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we all agree on using name, then I will go ahead an rollback m
If we all agree on using name, then I will go ahead an rollback my changes
to "set" and:
* add name to "url" and deprecated "id"
* add className to "bean" and deprecate "name" and (we will have to wait
until next version to use name for what id is today)
does that sound good?
musachy
On 6/14/
On 6/13/07, Rene Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personally personally find the combination of
a veeery common usecase. That said, I would be quite confused to have to
write
instead in future.
Anyway, thanks for setting the ticket on hold for now - maybe we manage to
get some more opinio
, we have to use "id"
> because "name" is used for the class name, (yes, it should have been
> "className" :) )
>
> musachy
>
>
> Regards,
>> Rene
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL
e "id"
because "name" is used for the class name, (yes, it should have been
"className" :) )
musachy
Regards,
Rene
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 June 2007 07:58
> To: Struts Developers List
> S
ds,
Rene
> -Original Message-
> From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 June 2007 07:58
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: name inconsistency
>
> -1 for that from my point of view:
>
> - id in html page context refers the unique identifie
eferring to S2 is still valid, and if S3 ever happens it can remove the
backwards compatibility baggage in favour of a consistant approach.
-Original Message-
From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2007 07:58
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: name inconsistency
t approach.
-Original Message-
From: Rene Gielen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 June 2007 07:58
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: name inconsistency
-1 for that from my point of view:
- id in html page context refers the unique identifier on a page, whereas
name lets you bind to a na
-1 for that from my point of view:
- id in html page context refers the unique identifier on a page,
whereas name lets you bind to a named target, not necessarily having to
be unique on the page. set clearly references a name from that
understanding (set the named property). I would find id quite
+1
I still have to look up S1 tag syntax; I'd hate to
have to play that game w/ S2 :)
--- Jon Wilmoth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a S2 user perspective the consistency would be
> appreciated (understanding I'd likely have to do a
> search and replace in my JSPs sooner or later).
>
>
> --
Thanks for the feedback. I logged:
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/WW-1981
if nobody is against it I will deprecate "name" and start using id instead.
musachy
On 6/11/07, Jon Wilmoth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From a S2 user perspective the consistency would be appreciated
(understan
>From a S2 user perspective the consistency would be appreciated (understanding
>I'd likely have to do a search and replace in my JSPs sooner or later).
- Original Message
From: Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:21:03 PM
Subje
29 matches
Mail list logo
