struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dakota Jack <dakota.j...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RFC: Struts HTML Ajax-Aware Tags
Date Wed, 06 Apr 2005 23:04:11 GMT
Frank,

Does this increase the code one must load whether one uses Ajax or not?  Thanks!



On Apr 6, 2005 3:16 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <fzlists@omnytex.com> wrote:
> I think I'm leaning with you Allen.  I didn't like the idea of requiring
> something that is essentially outside the taglib at first, but as I
> think about it more I think it just makes sense.  Besides, I guess one
> could argue that the extra config file is already something required
> outside the taglib anyway :)
> 
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Founder and Chief Software Architect
> Omnytex Technologies
> http://www.omnytex.com
> 
> Fogleson, Allen wrote:
> > Personally I don't see where putting the code inline or forcing the use
> > of a .js file through a switch really brings value. If the switch bought
> > some value, say advanced features or something then it might make sense.
> > Power users could turn on the switch and access these wonderful extra
> > features that are not used normally, but the PU might want to use.
> >
> > Personally I would say force the use of the file from the get go.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:fzlists@omnytex.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:07 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: Re: RFC: Struts HTML Ajax-Aware Tags
> >
> > I think the other benefit, although a more subjective one, is that a big
> >
> > long string of Javascript inline in a tag is kind of ugly.  I've
> > certainly done it many times, as I'm sure others have, so it isn't the
> > end of the world, it's just aesthetically not very pleasing to me.
> >
> > I like your idea about being able to switch though (I always like more
> > flexibility in anything)... I'm not sure I'm convinced it isn't better
> > to just make the include required from the get-go, but a switch is
> > certainly not a bad option.  Not a big deal to implement, I just wonder
> > if the benefit isn't a little dubious (i.e., there is probably more to
> > be said for not putting the code inline, so why not make it only work
> > that way?)
> >
> > Worth some others' input in any case I think.
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message