On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:54:49 -0300, Juan M Garrido de Paz
<juanm.garrido....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hola Thiago...
Olá! :)
But by now, I think I will use the util package by feature, with the
downside of having pages, components,... separated. The problem, as
always,
is time, and I think component libraries is too complicated to do it
quickly. My project is medium size.
Well, it isn't complicated in my humble opinion. After you do your first
one, the others come easy and quick.
Do you think that it's ok to have (in the root package) a base package
as I have, containing "abstract page" to inherit from it the common
services and other stuff? and maybe another abstract classes for another
types of
objects.
That's exactly the [root package].base package reason exists, so yes. :)
Just remember that everything that should be meant to be a superclass of
pages, components or mixins. Anything else shouldn't be put in a
Tapestry-controlled package, and 'base' is one of them.
Thank you very much for your answers, and for the tip about the component
libraries (I think it's the right way to go, when I have time :D )
My pleasure to help. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
