tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hls...@comcast.net>
Subject RE: Property initializers
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:33:20 GMT
I'm ok with it. I suspect the current design was more related to premature optimization than
to any
real architectural concern.

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components 
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mindbridge [mailto:mindbridgeweb@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:38 PM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: Property initializers
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Is there a -1 vote on this?
> 
> I would normally hold off until the release, but I think this 
> is a too major
> problem to wait.
> I have the code and an additional unit test ready, just need 
> to check it in
> if there are no objections.
> 
> -mb
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <colinml1@exis.com>
> To: "Tapestry development" <tapestry-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Property initializers
> 
> 
> > Personally, it surprised me the first time I figured out it only ran
> > once. I would consider it a 'bug'...
> >
> > Mindbridge wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >I am about to check in the docs and examples I was talking 
> about, but
> came across something interesting.
> > >
> > >The properties defined in the component specifications via
> <property-specification> can be initialized using the 'initial-value'
> parameter. This parameter is an OGNL expression that (at the 
> moment) is
> evaluated once during the creation of the component, the 
> value is stored,
> and is later used as an initialization value whenever necessary.
> > >
> > >Shouldn't the 'initial-value' expression be evaluated 
> every time it is
> needed for initialization instead (if not invariant, of course)?
> > >
> > >This latter approach allows a number of uses that the 
> former one does not
> (e.g. initializing to something that depends on the 
> bindings), and perhaps
> it is more natural to the users.
> > >
> > >Should this be considered a bug? Should it be changed? 
> (this is backward
> compatible if the initial-value parameter is used as designed at the
> moment).
> > >
> > >-mb
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message