Hi all,
I haven't yet posted to this list, although I have been lurking for quite some time now and managed to turn a certain Dirk O. and Christian N. into Tapestry fans - not to mention a customer. :-) I'm also an old WO user, just like a seemingly increasing number of people who feel the need to come out of their WOCloset here..but on with the show: > > (lots about automagic binding) > > For debate: should step #3 apply to scalar properties > (boolean, int, double, etc.) or just to object > properties? If possible, yes please. scalar values are just so nice to have instead of the wrapper types, and AFAICS everything is already in place, so why not? > For debate: Tapestry can now automate the process of > checking for required parameters ... that is, it can > enforce that a binding exists and that the binding's > value is non-null ... or should this check stay in > component code? IMHO whether a parameter is required or optional should be attribute of the components' API. The component designer should be able to specify which parameters are mandatory and/or optional. Makes it easier for a tool to check a component for consistency, too. > There will be a small loss in efficiency. Tapestry Ignore it (at first, at least). And this from someone who lives for performance! :-) > The plus side is that the codebase will shrink a bit. Significantly! Isn't that the most important aspect? Like you said, futzing with bindings is counterintuitive and also..tiresome. More code == more bugs. Code is evil. > It should be pretty obvious that the new code is far > more desirable. Note that none of the gobbledygook > about static bindings is needed anymore ... if its > static, it is set once and not changed. If it is > dynamic, it is set before renderComponent() and cleared > after. Yes. It would also make it easier for Spindle to update Java Source and bindings in sync, just like a certain commercial program that shall remain unnamed here. > I'm really warming up to this change. Given that > Tapestry is a component-based framework, it makes sense > that making components easier to construct is a win on > both the coding and marketing side of things. Yes, although Tapestry already is a very convincing 'sell' once you start showing some JSP lump. :) > So ... the final question is: when? 2.0.2, 2.0.3 ... or > should this wait for the 2.1 series? IMHO keep 2.0 stable, new bindings for a 2.1 branch. Break everything! Holger -- Holger Hoffst�tte Daedalos Consulting GmbH Ruhrtal 5, 58456 Witten, Germany http://www.daedalos.com/ _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
