I think I have ascertained that I was attempting to use nested definitions incorrectly.
-Matt --- On Wed, 5/27/09, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Matt Benson <[email protected]> > Subject: question about definitions/composition > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 11:46 AM > > I am attempting to have definitions like: > > <definition name="foo" template="foo-template" /> > > where foo-template includes tiles.insertAttribute > name="foo-attr" > > <definition name="bar" extends="foo"> > <put-attribute name="foo-attr" > value="bar-template" > > cascade="true" /> > </definition> > > where bar-template includes tiles.insertAttribute > name="bar-attr" > > <definition name="baz" extends="bar"> > <put-attribute name="bar-attr" > value="baz-template" /> > </definition> > > When I try to render baz, the runtime stack includes > foo-attr=bar-template and bar-attr=baz-template, but when > tiles tries to render bar-attr, nested in the evaluation of > foo-attr, bar-attr cannot be resolved. Am I doing > something fundamentally wrong with my composition? > Note that specifically I am using trunk/freemarker. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > > >
