About the beans: Have to think on that one. About the parameters: It is still an experiment, but I'm liking what I see. If you are confused, use a prefix (even if it matches the default-binding). As you use 4.0 more and more, you'll see the obvious places where you don't need a binding prefix and you can start to not use them.
On 5/6/05, Vjeran Marcinko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 from me about this Paul's notes. > > I know that Erik will be disappointed, but default binding prefixes seems > more as complication than simplification, at least by me (and Paul > obviously). > I think that it's enough for users to have to know Tapestry's binding > prefixes, and type of parameter, and now they even have to look at component > specs for parameter's default prefix to know what this value without prefix > means. > > Just my 2 cents. > > -Vjeran > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Ferraro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.tapestry.devel > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 8:01 AM > Subject: [DISCUSS] Default binding prefixes > > > I would like to discuss 2 issues relating to binding prefixes: > > 1. In alpha-1 (or maybe earlier), I recall that the default binding > > prefix for bean properties was changed to "literal". I saw this as an > > improvement over 3.1. In alpha-2, this was changed back to "ognl". > > I think I liked it better the other way around. I dislike having to use > > nested quotes to define literal strings this way within an xml attribute > > (e.g. <set name="pattern" value="'MM-dd-yyyy'"/>). > > Can we switch this back? > > > > 2. The more I use 4.0, the more I find the default binding prefix > > override for component parameters to be incredibly frustrating. I think > > that the hassle of having to lookup (or remember) the expected binding > > prefix for each component parameter far outweighs the minimal keystroke > > savings. I liked it better when "literal" was the default and > > overriding was not permitted. Things were much more straight forward > > that way. I find that I am wasting a lot of time debugging runtime > > exceptions in my component specification because I assumed the wrong > > binding prefix. > > > > Thoughts? > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 4.5.2005 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
