----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Default binding recap [WAS: 4.0: listeners]
> 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. Yes Howard, I thought about the same thing. That's my hope about default parameter types, that my hunch will turn out wrong. Because, if I was subscribed to mailing list when implicit components were being discussed about, I would probably be against it, because it really looks much more dirty then declared components. When using declared components, you are not confused with informal parameters, and since .page/.jwc file often already contains some meta about page/component, why make possibility to users for defining components outside of it. So I guess I would definetly be against that. BUT, in practice, it turned out that implicit components saved plenty of switching between .html and .page, that I really consider other way only in rare cases. Shame on me :-( -Vjeran -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 10.5.2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
