At 03:07 PM 10/24/2002 -0700, Drew Davidson wrote:
- The HTML file can specify the Java page class - You can define components (ids, types and bindings) in the HTML (I call these "implcit components", vs. the "declared components" of traditional Tapestry)
[...]
I think these changes will be for the best. Most people balk at the idea that everything must be in the declarations and only a small token (jwcid="name") has to be parsed and looked up just to find the declaration. On complicated pages this can be frustrating to have to look up definitions.
I really have a problem with this one, and don't see why such redundancy is needed.
Basically, more than one way of doing things at a conceptual level makes the whole thing more convoluted from the learning and maintenance perspective. (Of course them Perl people have another take on this issue :-)).
From marketing view, I think minimalistic coding in the template is one of the strongest points of Tapestry that should be used to promote it. What is suggested here is to make it JSP-lookalike in hope to attract JSP people. The result achieved maybe quiet the opposite - people would think that Tapestry is "yet another taglib".
Andrus
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0003en
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
