On May 6, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Vjeran Marcinko 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.
I'm not going to be disappointed either way. I'm after simplicity in what it takes for me to build a page and to look at it. Seeing listener="listener:...." looks very silly. But I do concur that it is confusing to have to know what the binding prefixes are - though in practice the defaults should be what is generally used anyway, with prefixes only needed when you break out of the norm.
Erik
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
