> one more word, just for completeness: everything is described in all > required detail in the docs. Thats a big plus for tapestry/Howard. >
Is it? I couldn't find a description of this particular issue. I was going through the Tutorial, Developer's Guide, and Component Reference but didn't see it? Did you have to drop down to Javadocs? I even perused those for a few of the classes (DirectService, Engine, etc.). Doh! I just started looking through the Javadocs in detail. Of course, I has passed over everything in the net.sf.tapestry.binding package in my search for the resolution to this problem, not knowing I had a problem with my binding type. Christian is right; all the binding types are described right there... ;-) Anyway, in general, Christian's comment is correct. Tapestry is very well documented, particularly compared to other open source projects. Documentation separates the men from the boys, so to speak. Given that somebody is revising the tutorial right now, as a newbie I would vote that the issue of binding types receive some good treatment. The problem here is that the error (stale session) was not obviously related to the cause (using a static-binding for the stateful parameter; BTW, does it make sense for the stateful parameter to ever use a static-binding??). This can be amazing frustrating to debug when you don't understand things well. Alternatively, if there's way for an "invalid binding type" error or something to be throw. That would have led me to the solution faster. Thanks for all the help, everybody. -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
