I guess I am wondered in other peoples ideas over pages and components.
Though my take on them... pages NEED to persist properties across request
boundaries... and components persist those page properties thru their well
defined parameter interface. Does this mean that components should never have
properties ?
Looking forward to light on this subject that might adhere to a natural model...
thanks
From: kcola...@live.com
To: users@tapestry.apache.org
Subject: pages vs components... use model still the same or has it evolved any ?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:25:23 -0400
An exerpt from a 2004 tapestry guide...
--------
A component's parameters are bound to properties of the
enclosing page. The component is allowed to read its parameter, to access the
page property the parameter
is bound to. A component may also update its parameter, to force a change to
the bound page
property.
-----------
Does this imply that components do not have properties ? or should not ?... I
know tapestry gives us enough rope to hang ourselves with
Is there a politically correct semantic for pages vs components now... with
tapestry5 or is the concept the same since older versions ?
If anyone could elaborate on a general use model for components vs pages that
would be helpful.
I have found some page/component code cluttered up with so many properties and
parameters not knowing which to use and when... whereby either of these have
both pages and properties....
If anyone could elaborate on a general use model for components vs pages that
would be helpful.
Thanks
Ken
