why not specify whether params allow null - rather than break things ? default to the old behavior.
it's not uncommon to have a null param - dunno why it would be different in a component. On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking of a change to how component parameters work. > > Currently, the required attribute of the Parameter annotation > indicates that a component parameter must be bound (either explicitly, > or to a default). It makes no assurances that it is bound to a > non-null value. > > I'm considering changing that, so that there would be a null check > for component parameters that are required, with an immediate failure > if the value bound to a required parameter is null. > > The question is: is this a destabilizing change? Has anyone written > components with required parameters that are allowed to be null? > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
