struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio Petrelli <>
Subject Re: [Tiles] Inline definitions (WAS: [Tiles] Embedding tiles inside of tiles)
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 08:57:58 GMT
Greg Reddin ha scritto:
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
>> <put name="attributeName" value="some.definition" type="definition" />
>> I don't think it is what you mean, because this is already there. Can 
>> you clarify what you mean with an example?
> No that's what I meant.  I just never have actually used that.  How 
> does that look on the JSP doing <tiles:insert/>?

The <tiles:insert> tag is perfectly the same, the only difference is 
that the nested definition is also evaluated.

>   You'd think I'd know this already :-)

Err... well yes... this is because I asked you for an example. Anyway 
this kind of things happens very often to me, if you don't use a thing 
you don't know its existence, right? :-)

> If that works the way I think it does then I'd much prefer that than 
> the "nested" tiles.

If you are thinking of "tiles inside tiles" they work perfectly. :-)

>   I'm not against support for the nested tiles, I'd probably just 
> never use it myself.  I think it makes things look cleaner if you do 
> something like the above.

I don't think it is a question of clearness, but someone could abuse of 
the presence of nested Tiles, e.g. repeating the same code again and 
again. Anyway I am going to write some code to support nested Tiles and 
when I'm finished I will submit to your judgment :-) I will start from 
the SVN committed code (with no patch made by me, I mean).

>   Of course I rarely use nested anonymous classes with Java either.  
> But it's just a personal preference.

I agree with you, Java anonymous classes are very obscure. I prefer 
inner classes or normal classes in some "internal" package.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message