ok, here goes again. > As you can see, the difference between the above approaches is precisely 7 > lines in the locations that I have specified. I have put the '? lines'
I am not sure what locations you have specified. But assuming it is 7 lines more to write for the "new component" approach, one also has to add that these are dispersed over 3 files, 2 of which contain 1 line. I cant help it - I dont like it. > Note that there is basically no difference between the two approaches when > 'use' is concerned -- they both require one short line. true. > This is where we come from, actually. In the pre-2.2 world aliases were > optional and Spindle, for example, did not use them at all. This is not very > compatible with the notion of libraries, however. Please have a look at the > mailing list archives on this topic, or perhaps Howard can explain his point > of view. strange. I have come across other systems with nested namespaces (e.g., the Java language), and none required to maintain unique global IDs for every item, as tapestry does for components. I remember one system that does have similar requirements, but I'd rather not mention it here.. ------------------------------------------------------- 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
