commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Sell <>
Subject Re: [jelly] taglib implementation questions
Date Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:47:47 GMT
I've got to have a final stab at this (no, it isn't that I always have 
to have the last word. Just this time..)

> (i) reusing the bean library as is with <beandef>
> (ii) deriving from BeanTagLibrary to register new beans
> (iii) creating a brand new tag library (and reusing the bean library for
> nested properties)
> (iv) creating a brand new library and reusing BeanTag and BeanPropertyTag.
> Take your pick they all achieve about the same thing.
> Downsides of (i) and (ii) is that <beandef> is visible in the XML, which
> some folks might not want. Downsides of (iii) is that it requires 2 seperate
> namespaces. 

I think mixing namespaces is what Jelly is all about, in a sense.. Whats 
bad about the beandef? In fact a useBean would do as well, wouldn't it?

<useBean xmlns="jelly:core" xmlns:bean="jelly:bean" var="c1" 

> Downside of (ii) and (iv) is a dependency on the bean tag
> library implementation. Additional downside of (iv) is that the
> implementation is a bit more code (which through some refactoring of
> BeanTagLibrary could be avoided).

Personally I always try to avoid depending on anything else than core 
functionality. For example, use standard Java collections if at all 
possible before moving to something like commons-collections.

Thats why I like (iii) (that had to be said, of course).

> I like (i) for general purpose stuff and (ii) or (iv) for implement custom
> languages. But each to their own.
> James
> -------
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message