-1 on the curly braces. That would be confusing: "it looks like a method
call, but aren't those curly braces? What's up with that?"
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Apr 14, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Richard Lewis-Shell wrote:
What about if the syntax was:
<a jwcid="@DirectLink" listener="doClick{objectId, index}">
-1 to that - far too confusing.
Then the method name is simply followed by an OGNL expression
resulting in the list of parameters, so it'd be simpler to implement
(I imagine), but perhaps not as clear as using ()s.
Parsing of the string to separate the parts would have to be done
regardless of whether parentheses or curly brackets are used, and using
curly brackets won't make it any simpler.
Again, there is no technical reason we couldn't make it look like a
real method call, parentheses and all. It's growing on me though... so
I'm now up to +0. I doubt its used much, but having a dynamic method
name is possible and it'd be trickier using this syntax. We'll leave
it up to Howard :)
Erik
Richard
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Apr 14, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Jamie wrote:
That's an interesting idea.
Howard? Erik?
There is no technical reason why this couldn't be done, and in
Picasso it is extensible enough to be able to plug in a custom
binding to make this happen (though maybe it'd require a custom
prefix? I'm not sure about that)
I can't say yet if I prefer the method signature format or not - it
looks clean, but it also would rely on a bit more magic in parsing
the string into a method name and then a parameter list and then
evaluating that parameter list as OGNL expressions individually. By
doing something like this you lose a bit of dynamic behavior in that
the method name would not be as easily dynamic as it could be when
kept separate from the parameters.
I'm -0 on such a change at this point.
Erik
Jamie
Dr Paul Gorman wrote:
OK. I guess the real question is why not just have:
<a jwcid="@DirectLink" listener="doClick(objectId,
index)"> . . .</a>
Why have a separate parameter for parameters ?
Paul
--- Jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
because the value in listener *must* be an ognl
expression.
Dr Paul Gorman wrote:
Is there any particular reason why you don't make
the
syntax the same as an OGNL expression ?
e.g.
<a jwcid="@DirectLink" listener="doClick"
parameters="{ objectId, index }"> . . . </a>
becomes
<a jwcid="@DirectLink"
listener="ognl:doClick(objectId, index)"> . . .
</a>
Regards
Paul.
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo!
Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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]
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
