--- Edgar P Dollin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the first time in many months, there was some visible progress in > the > area of acceptance of submissions on tags. Thank you David and Robert. > > I do have some points that I am sure will draw fire, but I have been an > idiot on this forum for so long... > > 1) It is fine that the basic tags in struts don't emit non-standard > html, > but why do struts tags have to 'police' the emission of non-html. For > many > intranet style projects, non standard html is important to achieve > specific > required functionality. To deny the need for such code seems strange.
I agree that the standard tags should be extendable to make customizations easy. What I take issue with is functionality designed expressly for creating non-portable applications such as the hook methods suggested earlier. Non-standard HTML should be considered a crime against humanity :-). > > 2) It baffles my mind why struts insists the tags be so minimalistic and > non-creative. I am aware of the difficulties in writing tags with the > weird > life span and semi random instantiation patterns and the bugs that are > almost endemic with custom tags. You just answered your own question :-). > But simple tags like java-script > assisted > date entry are so basic that simple implementations should be part of > struts. Many of us have implementations of this (i.e. Matt Kruse's date > functions) but there would be no hope of a submission passing muster. Do these tags tie into Struts core functionality? If not, they are great candidates for the Jakarta Taglib project. IMO, tags that help the view talk to Struts (like the html taglib) are suited for the standard tags distro. > > 3) Lastly, there are certain class of business information that the view > needs, i.e. readonly, size. The tags should have to ability to easily > pass > this information from the business tier to the view. Again, the hope of > a > submission relating to this type of extension being accepted seems iffy, > especially since generalizing a specific implementation is a bit of > effort. This is a larger problem than just custom tags. You would need an xml description of your forms that we currently don't have the framework to support. Ted has mentioned something similar to this before. David > > Edgar > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 5:07 PM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: Re: Editable Fields V/S Static Text > > > > > > David Graham wrote: > > > There are 3 things that earn my -1 on tag enhancements: > > > 1. Functionality already provided by the JSTL. > > > > Just as an aside, I believe by -1 David means that he won't volunteer > > his own time to the issue. As a volunteer, this is his > > absolute right. > > But, since the Struts minimum platform doesn't support JSTL, > > this point > > alone would not be a justification for a "product change" veto. > > > > > 2. Functionality that supports non-standard HTML > > generation. 3. Tags > > > that don't tie into the Struts core functionality. These > > are better > > > suited for the Jakarta Taglibs project. > > > > However, IMHO, these would be technical justifications for a > > -1 veto =:) > > > > -Ted. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
