Kevin Menard wrote: > On Friday 05 August 2005 18:38, Robert Zeigler wrote: > >>Personal opinion, but i don't find that bad form in any way. Quite the >>opposite. Basically... if you're thinking about your templates like >>they are objects, and the html like it's java code, and you don't want >>to rewrite it, then, imo, you're on the right track. >>Treat the html like code... object and methods (ie components) = reuse, >>less typing, and less debugging! :) I'd go so far as to say that if >>you're /not/ creating components, even application specific ones, you're >>really not taking full advantage of everything tapestry has to offer. > > > On the same token, components for the sake of components really doesn't gain > you anything.
Agreed. > > Personally, I go for the easiest, most straightforward approach first (i.e., > no component) and then when I actually encounter something that would merit > code reuse, I refactor into a component. I find this far easier to manage > since I don't have a ton of JWC files kicking around that are essentially > gaining me nothing. But then again, I really got hooked on the agile > software method's idea of "code for now, wait for the future" approach. > In all honesty, that's typically what I do. I write it into the page. And if I'm working on another page, and find myself writing something which looks suspiciously familiar, or find myself needing functionality I know I already wrote into another page, I'll go back and turn it into a component. My point was simply that, just because you can't reuse the component across multiple projects doesn't mean it shouldn't be a component. :) (Or, there's nothing wrong with application-specific components. :) Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
