struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Reddin <gred...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [tiles2] Some words about proposed changes
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:30:31 GMT
On Oct 5, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Cedric Dumoulin wrote:

>  I just came across some of the mails about Tiles2. First, I am  
> very glad that someone has the time to let Tiles evolve.
>  But, I am a little bit disappointed about how the proposed Tiles  
> API evolved.

I'm glad you're speaking up and watching what's going on.  In many  
cases I've been uneasy about the changes I've made simply because I'm  
not sure I understood the original intent of things I've removed or  
modified.  I'm glad you're still around :-)

>    * <get> was changed to <insert> - because we mainly say that we  
> want
>      to insert something

So, have we come to the conclusion that Insert will stay and Get will  
go?  I'm comfortable with that approach at this point.

>    * Attributes "template=" and "component=" were changed to "page=" -
>      because we specify the page to insert. Tiles is more than a
>      templating mechanism, and the inserted page is not necessary a
>      template :-). Maybe we can use "tile=" now that tile is a very
>      well established name.

The only problem I have with "tile" is that I would tend to think of  
a "tile" as a named definition or something.  More often than not I  
think of inserting a tile as inserting a definition by name i.e.  
tile="headerTile" rather than as inserting a page i.e. tile="/ 
headerTile.jsp".  I like using "template" on the definition tag  
because, on a definition, it seems like the "page" really is a  
template.  It's a page to which parameter values (or attribute  
values) will be applied when it is invoked.  But I guess you could  
see any JSP page as being that way.  So there's only a very subtle  
difference between a page that is a template vs. a page that is not a  
template.  It gets really crazy if you think of it this way:  The  
only time a JSP page is not a template is if it *only* contains  
template text.  Yuck :-)

In the end I'm ok with using "tile" if that's what everybody else  
wants.  However, if we go this route I think we need to document  
somewhere "What is a tile?"  It can be a page.  It can be a  
template.  It can be an attribute, etc.  After thinking about it a  
bit I'd *really* prefer we use "template" to define a page on a  
<definition> tag and use "page" to define it everywhere else (<put>  
and <insert>).  To me, that's the most clear.  But I can go either way.

>    * The controllers were added to allows stand alone use of tiles to
>      be able to do some kind of computation associated to the tiles.
>      When used with Struts, there is a redundancy (with the use of
>      actions), but when used alone, the controller mechanism is very
>      useful to separate view rendering from controller business

I'll respond more fully to this in response to Antonio, but in  
essence I agree with you about this.

Greg


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


Mime
View raw message