-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Comments inline
Fernando Padilla wrote: > > > Brian K. Wallace wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> So what I'm gathering from this is: >> >> 1. Defaulting friendly URLs from a user perspective is a plus but has a >> drawback of current implementation in both a hivemodule and web xml. > > "drawback of breaking backwards compatibility" and having to update > configuration files The breaking of backward compatibility would be a definite possibility, but not a certainty. The specific ramifications of this change would be implementation dependent, but it would probably come on the heels of either "break it" or "re-config it". The percentage of users who would actually have apps _break_ would probably be very low in any case as one of the options I originally presented would continue to accept URLs as they currently are. > > >> 3. Somewhat off-topic, the need for multiple types of links is not >> clear. (ideally, I'd like to see a single @Link and have Tapestry figure >> out what kind it needs to be by parameters, URL, or other identifying >> marker. > > This is a bad summary. We were just talking about PageLink/Service and > ExternalLink/Service. They are essentially the same: loadPage, > initPage, renderPage, returnPage. The only difference is if you have > any parameters to pass the page for it to initialize itself with. > > There is no talk (I am not qualified to talk) of confusing this very > straight forward behavior with ActionLink or DirectLink, which deal with > more complicated scenarios and doing callbacks on particular components > within a page, blah blah blah. > > If I create an Page/ExternalLink I am fully aware that the page has only > as much information as I pass to it through the parameters, nothing > more. That's the whole point. I think we can work on refactoring these > together without having to deal at all with the issues of rewind or > state management. It's an interesting feeling to be somewhere between "good summary" and "bad summary". :-/ Perhaps my summary was too high a level and contained both 'summary' and 'my personal preference' in one. Yes, I was indeed summarizing only Page and External links. My addition to include a desire for an @Link vs. all the different types of components was misplaced for such a summary. (I should have put it in the thread leading up to the summary if I were going to mention it at all, but that's one of the areas that lay outside the original question of URLs) Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEPU9YaCoPKRow/gARAj4zAKDye9NW7V2SQMZ7ZZYMJxxDTH3N+ACfVR1e ciaSHfbLLCKic8t/HgFwjOA= =zOJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
