>Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote: >I see this as like the split between implicit and declared components. > Implicit components open up the possiblity of a lot of absuses and >people were initially worried. Once they started building apps with >implicit components, they set individual standards and practices for >when to use implicit vs. when to use declared.
Code practices and conventions are a good thing and in many cases it is preferrable to have a flexible framework and invent your own restrictions rather than having the framework force it on everybody. That said, as a newbie at Tapestry, although not at Java or web, and I must agree with Patrick and Vjeran, it sure makes it harder to grasp the great design and ideas behind tapestry when you get stuck on syntax that looks different from example to example. For example, the component documentation is very nice, but the examples use implicit components sometimes and explicit sometimes. I found that very confusing at first. Sure, when you get the hang of it the examples makes perfect sense but at first it does not help the already steep (un)learning curve. Perhaps all of us newbies could collaborate on the Tapstry Wiki and create a kind of style guide to writing tapestry examples and documentation. Things that we as newbies get stuck on. For example: Try to use explicit components if it otherwise makes no difference, try to use the listener:-prefix and so on. >On 5/11/05, Patrick Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> in to say I'm not a big fan of default binding either. I know what I was >> learning tapestry it was very confusing to figure out whether I should be >> typing "ognl:foo" or just plain "foo" and whether just plain foo was going >> to be parsed or a literal. ... >> >> --- Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
