I would vote just the opposite way. In this case I am returning the exact type that is declared on the abstract method. I am not returning a BaseComponent. I hate the 'type' parameter. It interfers with refactoring because eclipse doesn't know it should do anything with the type parameter. So far 100% of the times where I had to specify the type hasn't needed any clarification. The coding style I am using means that I never use the .jwc/.page files, only annotations.
The current behavior points out a Tapestry bug as well. 1. Declare a method: @Component public abstract com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation getNavigation(); 2. Declare the classes: com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation and com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation 3. Declare the component-class-packages: <meta key="org.apache.tapestry.component-class-packages" value="com.transparentpolitics.web.components"/> If Tapestry looks at the com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation class file, it can see that it has been annotated correctly and it should chose the class, com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.members.Navigation, not com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.Navigation. However, Tapestry gets really wigged out and throws this exception: Property navigation has already been accounted for by the element at Annotation @org.apache.tapestry.annotations.Parameter(cache=true, defaultValue=, required=true, name=, aliases=) of public abstract com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.Navigation com.transparentpolitics.web.components.member.NonflowBorder.getNavigation(). -Pat On 10/13/06, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. I would vote a +1 for changing "type" back to required, mainly because of new users. Discarding "type" results in less readable code for example when compared to omitting @InjectObject, which has a more implicit meaning. >So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple nor the full) This may not be evident for new users, especially when they read in the docs that Tapestry supports pure-java, annotation-only components... IMO Regards, Norbi andyhot wrote: > Patrick Moore wrote: > >> To my untrained eye, it looks like the problem is that the >> _componentResolver on line 390 of >> org.apache.tapestry.pageload.PageLoader doesn't have the full class >> name. >> >> On 10/12/06, Patrick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi there -- >>> >>> I just shifted over to Tap 4.1.1 and I was hoping I could get rid of >>> the use of 'type' in my @Component annotation. But no such luck. >>> > > It's not a matter of luck... You can simply have many components all > sharing the same class. Think for instance all those template-only > components... > their class is BaseComponent. > > So, in a word, Tapestry cannot use the class name (neither the simple > nor the full) > in order to make apart a component. It always needs the type. > > type has been made optional to facilitate cases where it matches the > class name. > I believe that's what stated at > http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry4.1/tapestry-annotations/index.html > If this causes confusions , i'm 100% for making type required again. > > > >>> In my application file I indicate that the components are in the >>> 'com.transparentpolitics.web.components' directory (or its >>> subdirectories). However, Tap doesn't find components that are in >>> child directories of the 'com ... components' directory. So component >>> references like this: >>> >>> @Component >>> public abstract Navigation getNavigation() >>> >>> don't work but this does work : >>> >>> @Component(type="utils/Navigation") >>> public abstract Navigation getNavigation() >>> >>> (Navigation is >>> 'com.transparentpolitics.core.web.components.util.Navigation') >>> Now I don't understand why Tap can't find the component as the method >>> call returns the exact component class. Is this just a known temporary >>> limit? Or would changing this current behavior to look at the actual >>> class supplied cause problems? >>> >>> I do know that I can list out each child component directory but that >>> has its own problem as there are some cases of duplicate class names. >>> In any case all the information is on that annotated method call. >>> >>> -Pat >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
