I have two simplifications in mind:
(1) Make component infer the type from the return type of the getter.
It is just silly that I have to say "TextField" twice in a row:
@Component( type = "TextField" )
public abstract TextField getEmail();
(Howard, is there a compelling reason for this? There must be, but I
don't see it.)
(2) There should be a naming convention that a getter named
getXyzComponent() takes its value from the xyz property, and has a
component ID of "xyz" instead of "xyzComponent." Then I could do this:
<input jwcid="email">
@Component
public abstract TextField getEmailComponent();
public abstract String getEmail();
public abstract void setEmail(String email);
Ahh! How nice. I could only wish.
The current syntax for the above is full of irritating redundancy:
<input jwcid="email">
@Component(
type="TextField",
id="email",
bindings="value=ognl:email" )
public abstract TextField getEmailComponent();
public abstract String getEmail();
public abstract void setEmail(String email);
Bleah.
FWIW, I don't find that the annotations make the source file very
messy at all. Maybe it's just because Eclipse's syntax highlighting
and code folding do reasonable things with them? I certainly find
them much more readable than XML config. Certainly they're much more
concise!
Cheers,
Paul
On Jan 15, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Martin Strand wrote:
Personally, I hardly ever use the @Component annotation cause it
makes the source file so messy. And I try to include as little
logic as possible in the .html template. After all, the html vs
logic separation is one of Tapestry's greatest benefits IMO.
If the annotations would be simplified further, perhaps I would
start using @Component. I just can't think of any particular
simplification, what did you have in mind?
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:33:53 +0100, Paul Cantrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The reason you can't do this in the page file is that it would
make it impossible to have a meaningful DTD. Of course, you can do
essentially the same thing in your HTML:
<span jwcid="loop" source="ognl:someCollection>
Ultimately, Gregg is right: annotations are the wave of the
future. (Personally, I view .page and .jwc files as heading for
deprecation, though the Tapestry team might not agree.) And I do
think there are many things about Tapestry's annotation structure
that could be simplified -- so that's where simplification efforts
should be directed, IMO.
Cheers,
Paul
On Jan 15, 2006, at 8:15 AM, Martin Strand wrote:
How about using <component> attributes instead of the <binding>
element?
i.e. we would have
<component id="loop" type="For" source="ognl:someCollection"/>
instead of
<component id="loop" type="For">
<binding name="source" value="ognl:someCollection"/>
</component>
The old way would still work, but there would be a simplified
alternative. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
