I guess the only consequence is that your base page is regarded as a regularly accessible page/component by tapestry. I have such base components myself, and did some thinking about this. I don't like having too many duplicate packages like the example below, but I don't see another way out when using (possibly abstract) base classes:
tapestryroot.base.mymodule.blabla.AbstractBaseComponent tapestryroot.components.mymodule.blabla.AbstractBaseComponent tapestryroot.pages.mymodule.blabla.AbstractBaseComponent On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Peter Stavrinides < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding a quote from the docs here: > http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/guide/component-classes.html > > Component Packages: > ... "In addition, it is common for an application to have base classes, > often abstract base classes, that should not be directly referenced. These > should not go in the pages, components or mixins packages, because they then > look like valid pages, components or mixins. Instead, use the root.base > package to store such base classes." > > Does this imply put only your 'abstract' base class in base? I am currently > using base classes (not abstract) and placing them in the components > package. What is the consequence of this, if any? my understanding is these > should NOT go in base, is this correct? > > Thanks, > Peter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
