OK. Lets leave it at that, I guess. Agree to disagree ;-). 1. Polymorphism is not about implementation at all. It is about interfaces, which is what Components can aspire to be, sort of. In that case, components, do not get tied to page properties - they use only those available - and if not, they behave as if those properties do not exist. That is Polymorphism, for me. So a shape would draw only if there was concrete draw provided, other it would ignore the draw request.
2. This discussion is about expanding horizons of Tapestry...not saying this a "Very Bad Thing etc" or giving up because it is difficult. That is why we can have JIRA (let it be in Version 7). Or citing some principles that are yet to be articulated fully...for all I know, we are doing that now. Basically, it is about more magic, not less functionality. 3. I see pageName is just another page property...nothing more, nothing less (or should be, if not). Therefore, all other page properties should be visible as well. Of course, I have not looked at the code... That said, THANKS, I like the idea of ComponentResources.getPage()...*may* indeed be the answer I was look for...but I am already on a roll, so perhaps will look into later and report back -- View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Can-Component-Template-be-Informed-by-Page-Class-tp5681397p5681962.html Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
