Re: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ?

2011-09-09 Thread Peter Stavrinides
00 Athens, Bucharest, Istanbul Subject: Re: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ? This is less to do with Tapestry and more to do with general OO practises and your personal preference towards it. e.g. When writing a Java class, you could write everything in a s

Re: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ?

2011-09-09 Thread Steve Eynon
er interface. Does this mean that components should never have > properties ? > > Looking forward to light on this subject that might adhere to a natural > model... > > thanks > > From: kcola...@live.com > To: users@tapestry.apache.org > Subject: pages vs componen

RE: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ?

2011-09-08 Thread Ken in Nashua
have properties ? Looking forward to light on this subject that might adhere to a natural model... thanks From: kcola...@live.com To: users@tapestry.apache.org Subject: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ? Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:25:23 -0400 An

pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ?

2011-09-08 Thread Ken in Nashua
the bound page property. --- Does this imply that components do not have properties ? or should not ?... I know tapestry gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with Is there a politically correct semantic for pages vs components now... with tapestry5 or is the concept the same since

Re: Pages vs Components

2009-01-16 Thread Onno Scheffers
> > I don't understand when I would use a Component and what they are for. Typically a web-application is built from a number of pages. And each page is different. Many elements on the pages will be the same or similar though. For those elements it is usually wise to create a separate component

Re: Pages vs Components

2009-01-16 Thread Howard Lewis Ship
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Christian Edward Gruber wrote: > In some ways, a Page is just a Component that has no parent. A page is a top level component. Technically, the page component is actually the root component of the actual page (true pages are a concept internal to Tapestry) but it

Re: Pages vs Components

2009-01-16 Thread Christian Edward Gruber
they somewhat like a tag in a tag library? BTW, I really like what I am seeing with Tapestry, vastly better than the XML hell that is Struts. However, since it is a vast departure from most web frameworks there is a pretty big learning curve. Seems worth it so far though. -- View this message in c

Pages vs Components

2009-01-16 Thread mjparme
nabble.com/Pages-vs-Components-tp21508386p21508386.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-mai