Patrick Moore wrote: > Hi Ryan -- > > Eclipse can look for fully specified names but 'members/Navigation' > isn't fully specified. > The component specification looks like: > > @Component(type="member/Navigation") > public Navigation getNavigation(); > > (FYI, in my example I was only giving the full flassname for > illustration only) > > You talk about the ambiguity if the 'type' parameter isn't specified. > What ambiguity are you refering to? I haven't encountered a single > example of such ambiguity yet. The only case I have heard of is the > template-only components. But that isn't an issue for me as those > components I specify anonymously in my html template.
Here's another: I've seen (and even written) components that provide nicer gui on top of contrib:Table. They all usually define the same component class as contrib:Table does... But this doesn't mean we aren't looking for ways to make this easier for users... We just have to make sure that (given the way things currently work) no problems are introduced - and IMHO this is exactly what will happen if we even try to resolve component types from classes. -- Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr Tapestry / Tacos developer Open Source / J2EE Consulting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
