> Were we to try and make the Workbench Border component re-usable in new
> applications, THEN we would have to add parameters, including a list of
> pages, plus titles and whatever else.
that (only THAT) is what I was trying to get at all the time. Reusable
components. If you wanted to make the W
parameters, including a list of
pages, plus titles and whatever else.
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
> > WRO
Actually, I used the property file because it was something
that was going
to change frequently, and because I coded that before OGNL
was available.
So I could have done it as:
expression='{ "Home", "Foo", "Bar", "Baz" ... }'/>
If I was doing it today.
Either way, it is only configured o
>Actually, I used the property file because it was something
that was going
>to change frequently, and because I coded that before OGNL
was available.
>
>So I could have done it as:
>
>
>
>If I was doing it today.
>
>Either way, it is only configured once.
but you would have had to repeat the b
he
default class (pretty much a JBoss "interceptor").
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Schnyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
> I implemented a
?
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
> your quote from my mail below may have been the point where you stopped
> r
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2002 14:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to bring up again the point about component
> configurations. As far as I remember there was no final
> answer.
>
&g
ok, here goes again.
> As you can see, the difference between the above approaches is precisely 7
> lines in the locations that I have specified. I have put the '? lines'
I am not sure what locations you have specified. But assuming it is 7 lines
more to write for the "new component" approach, on
is is
really an amazing list.
- Original Message -
From: "kyle dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
> Hey, I'm chiming in late here, but this dis
Hey, I'm chiming in late here, but this discussion seems like we're
smacking our heads against a brick wall a little bit. I think this
whole confusion is kind of related to the problem that lots of
developers have understanding the difference between "Class" and
"Instance". Christian wants
Don't confuse the silly little Border from the Tutorial with a for-real Border
component. Tutorial exist to demonstrate ideas.
Take a look at the Workbench's Border component for an example of something
more realistic.
It sets up stylesheets, draw the tabbed navigation view, includes the copyr
>Could you describe the application you're building, at what
about it makes it
>so that you require this complex configuration?
Thanks, I have already explained my scenario several times.
See more below.
>Where do its parameters come from? Do you mix and match
parameters specified in the
>
Hi Christian,
I think am clear as to what you suggest (see below for an example). Here is
an example of what I am talking about:
>>New Component (Tapestry 2.4):
>>-
>>1 x defining a new component
>> 5 lines + 'component configuration', 1 line template, 1 line alia
A few notes ...
Being able to specify the absolute path to a component was phased out in 2.2
because it makes it impossible to determine which namespace a particular
component should belong in. Further, in 2.4, component specifications can be
located on the classpath or within the context (tha
mb,
in continuation of the previous mail: Of yourse "new
component" is more "powerful", because you can override
everything that makes up a component, whereas reused
configurations can only override parameters. But I would
still question your arithmetics:
>New Component (Tapestry 2.4):
>-
>New Component (Tapestry pre 2.4):
>-
>1 x defining a new component
> 5 lines + 'component configuration', 1 line template,
1 line alias
>
>N x using the new component
> 1 line in page definition, 1 line in template
>
>New Component (Tapestry 2.4):
>
>I think Mr. Sell is in a kind of "JMX" mindset, where there
is one
>configuration (possibly assembled from multiple places) that
is shared by
>everyting.
Howard,
I hope its ok if I address you that way. You may call me
Christian, too.
In fact "assembling" is not the right term. As I said
oved in Tapestry to cut
down on those "7 extra lines of code". For example, the template may not be
needed in a situation like that. Whether this makes sense and when it could
be done has to be decided, however.
-mb
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PRO
8:48:55 -0500
>Von: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Betreff: Re: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
>An: "Christian Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>I would suggest checking out the relevant portions on the
Wiki.
>
>Easing adopt
It's wheels-within-wheels baby!
I think Mr. Sell is in a kind of "JMX" mindset, where there is one
configuration (possibly assembled from multiple places) that is shared by
everyting.
Tapestry has no special knowledge about its components. Whether create an
Insert or a contrib:Palette (pretty
Christian Sell wrote:
Hello,
I would like to bring up again the point about component
configurations. As far as I remember there was no final
answer.
In Tapestry component configurations have to be repeated for
every page and component which embeds the component.
Moreover, all components ha
> How Geoff is going to make Spindle support this is anyone's guess!
Yup.
---
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Geek Gift Procrastinating?
Get the perfect geek gift now! Before the Holidays pass you by.
T H I N K G E E K . C O M http:/
one's guess!
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions
> Hello,
>
> I would like to bring up again the point abou
Hello,
I would like to bring up again the point about component
configurations. As far as I remember there was no final
answer.
In Tapestry component configurations have to be repeated for
every page and component which embeds the component.
Moreover, all components have to be assigned type a
t have slightly different component structure, but
otherwise be ok.
- Original Message -
From:
Mind
Bridge
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:13
AM
Subject: [Tapestry-developer] Component
definitions in the template
Let's have
Sorry, I just want to correct myself a bit:
It is actually possible to combine the two apporaches by creating a separate component tree for each template of the page/component (or something immitating that), rather than a single one for all, as it is now.
That would require either a lazy componen
Let's have a quick look at what happens when we add the ability to define components in the template. I will try to expand a little on Howard's suggestion so that we can have a better look at what the costs of that approach are.
First of all, I assume that the format will be something like this:
H
27 matches
Mail list logo
