I actually do like the default prefixes the way it is now, but if more and more people start to have problems with it, yes you can always specify the prefix but it can, more conveniently, be made configurable like Brian suggests.
-Harish On 5/6/05, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
