I would suggest checking out the relevant portions on the Wiki. Easing adoption of Tapestry is a big concern for us. Release 2.4 focuses on this, making compromises that will ease adoption.
Basically, less is going into the specs and more into the HTML, but it's still very much Tapestry. Most simple components (Insert, Conditional particularily) will NOT have to be in the page specification. In addition, Tapestry is using a search path mechanism to find page and component specifications rather than making you declare them. How Geoff is going to make Spindle support this is anyone's guess! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Sell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 8:34 AM Subject: [Tapestry-developer] component definitions > Hello, > > I would like to bring up again the point about component > configurations. As far as I remember there was no final > answer. > > In Tapestry component configurations have to be repeated for > every page and component which embeds the component. > Moreover, all components have to be assigned type aliases in > the application file (I am not familiar with the workings of > libraries yet). > > This is in contrast with other component systems I have used, > among them tiles (BTW, if looked at solely from the > standpoint of presentation components, the tiles model is > quite good. What it lacks is behavioral componentization). In > those systems, component configurations are/can be kept in > dedicated registries from where they can be referenced by any > other component/page in the application. This allows reuse of > component configurations, and possibley more effcient > cacheing than is done today by tapestry. Of course it is > conceivable to maintain nested registry namespaces, even down > to the level of the individual page/component. > > I also dont quite see the need for the type alias definition. > Why not reference components by the complete path to their > location, as is done for java classes? BTW, I also see > WebOGNL doing it this way (e.g. component > id="/path/path/name"). > > Does anyone else think it would at least theoretically make > sense/be possible to introduce these items into tapestry? > > thanks, > Christian Sell > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Geek Gift Procrastinating? > Get the perfect geek gift now! Before the Holidays pass you by. > T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/ > _______________________________________________ > Tapestry-developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Geek Gift Procrastinating? Get the perfect geek gift now! Before the Holidays pass you by. T H I N K G E E K . C O M http://www.thinkgeek.com/sf/ _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
