+1 2008/8/18 Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> +1 > > T5 is all about making things easy. I would say that having an equivalent > to $content$ would be a step in the right direction. > Maybe issue TAPESTRY-1710 should be reopened ? > > > Onno Scheffers wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Having $content$ is much better IMHO. I'm using the other approach >> currently >> as a work-around, but it doesn't feel as clean or as easy as having >> $content$. I'm adding a commentblock to the elements to make clear what is >> happening there so future developers on the project don't get confused. >> >> regards, >> >> Onno >> >> >> 2008/8/18 Alex Kotchnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >>> Ivan, >>> thank you for offering your suggestion, indeed the solution you propose >>> for this particular case is straightforward enough and solves the >>> problem. >>> >>> I guess the reason that I was bringing this up for consideration >>> (despite >>> it being discussed in the past), is that the lack of $content$ equivalent >>> functionality introduced a couple of not very desirable things into my >>> setup: >>> >>> 1. In order to solve this problem, I had to introduce an "unnecessary" >>> element into my layout, namely the <t:parameter /> & <t:delegate /> >>> elements, in order to account for the possibility that the user might >>> want >>> to have a previewable template. In order for a "client" page to use my >>> layout component, it not only need to know about the layout component, >>> but >>> also need to know that "the content" needs to be included in a >>> particularly >>> named element. One could certainly say that this is the "API" for using >>> the >>> layout component. The thing is that if I go this route, all pages that >>> want >>> to use the layout will have to have the extra <t:parameter /> included, >>> and >>> that doesn't seem very clean. >>> >>> 2. I had to declare the component at the top of the page, making it wrap >>> around a whole bunch of things that I don't care for (although, from a >>> different point of view, it indeed makes sense to declare the t:layout >>> component at the top as it affects the whole page). So, while previously, >>> the declaration (e.g. where I specify the t:layout) and providing the >>> content for the component (e.g. seeing what actually ends up in the >>> "content" area of my output) were very close together e.g. >>> >>> <html ...> >>> ... stuff stuff stuff..... >>> <t:layout > THe content that I care for </t:layout> >>> ... more stuff stuff stuff ... >>> </html> >>> >>> >>> whereas now, the two are very much far apart and much more difficult to >>> distinguish from the "other stuff", e.g. >>> >>> <html t:type="layout"> >>> .... stuff stuff stuff ... >>> <t:parameter> the content that I care for </t:parameter> >>> ... more stuff.... stuff... stuff ... >>> </html> >>> >>> So, in summary I guess I'm bringing up the more conceptual problem of how >>> the lack of the equivalent of $content$ just makes two very common usages >>> (e.g. having a layout component, having a previewable page based on that >>> content) just a little harder to get started with. When you add to that >>> the >>> fact that most "layout" component examples in T5 do not include the >>> solution >>> you propose (e.g. most use t:body), it just adds a little bit of extra >>> complexity (which is generally against what I understand is one of the >>> main >>> goals of T5). >>> >>> In one of the previous posts it was suggested that patching the parser >>> was >>> the way to add $content$ equivalent functionality. Would that be a >>> desirable >>> feature for other members (or is it just all in my head) ? Are there are >>> any >>> reasons adding such a feature would be unwanted ? Are there any special >>> issues that I need to be aware of in implementing this ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Alex Kotchnev >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Ivan Dubrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Alex Kotchnev wrote: >>>> >>>> I also found this solution : >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> http://www.nabble.com/Re-%3A-Re-%3A-T5%3A-Layout-question-to16448904.html#a16448904 >>> >>> >>>> , >>>>> but life just becomes a little uglier with it. I see that we're >>>>> jumping >>>>> through these hoops to prevent template previewability and so if it >>>>> becomes >>>>> too much of a hassle to deal with I can scrap previewability. However, >>>>> it's >>>>> such a pity when it was nice and elegant in T4, and not it's a little >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What are the problems with the last option? You just mark <html> tag >>>> with >>>> t:type="layout" and wrap the $content$ area with <t:parameter >>>> name="body">...page content...</t:parameter>. Simple. Inside the layout >>>> >>>> >>> you >>> >>> >>>> use <t:delegate t:to="body"/> instead of <t:body/> and that's all (there >>>> "body" is the component parameter). >>>> >>>> Like this: >>>> >>>> Layout.tml >>>> <html> >>>> <head> ... </head> >>>> <body> >>>> <div id="header"> ...</div> >>>> <div id="content"> <t:delegate t:to="body" /> </div> >>>> <div id="footer"> .. </div> >>>> </body> >>>> </html> >>>> >>>> Page1.html: >>>> >>>> <html t:type="layout"> >>>> <head> ... </head> >>>> <body> >>>> <div id="header"> ...</div> >>>> <div id="content"><t:parameter name="body"> Foo, bar baz >>>> </t:parameter></div> >>>> >>>> <div id="footer"> .. </div> >>>> </body> >>>> </html> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> WBR, >>>> Ivan S. Dubrov >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- regards, Jun Tsai
