Subject: Re: Dynamic Variables in Asset declarations - msg#00177

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

[T5] metrics about tapestry-5 codebase quality

This confirms my gut feelings that tapestry framework itself is not only good but also its codebase :) http://nemo.sonar.codehaus.org/project/index/org.apache.tapestry:tapestry-project -- manuel aldana aldana@xxxxxx software-engineering blog: http://www.aldana-online.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Switch from Prototype to jQuery?

We use YUI ourselves. What ever happened to the concept of pluggable javascript implementations? So people can choose what underlying javascript system to use? Chris Lewis wrote: I have a great deal of experience with prototype, and not so much with jQuery. From my brush with it, it seems to me that it is less than ideal for building front end widgets, as it's primary focus is more on easily navigating the DOM and affecting elements in various, insulated ways. It doesn't provide the type of framework for general OO modeling, which makes it less ideal for things like ui components. On the other hand, I always thought that dojo was a major overkill. Prototype balances the functional nature of JS with a nice platform for doing things like dojo does - and for me it just fits. If I'm mistaken about the abilities of jQuery, that is just my inexperience with it. The question I would propose is, what's the point? T5 works just fine how with the current tapestry.js, why exert what seems to be a fruitless effort simply for the sake of changing JS badges? Howard Lewis Ship wrote: There's been a lot of discussion on blogs lately about the merits of Prototype vs. jQuery. http://tapestryjava.blogspot.com/2009/01/comparing-prototype-and-jquery.html I've added an issue to JIRA to discuss this. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-486 Basically, a rewrite of tapestry.js from Prototype to jQuery should insulate most users from the changes. Advanced users who have written their own javascript components may need to add an annotation or a configuration value for compatiblity after upgrading. I may start experimenting with this in a branch. I've noticed that many of the more interesting public sites using Tapestry are already using jQuery as well ... thus this shift represents addresing the core concern of performance (having to download and use just one JavaScript library, not two). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Dynamic Variables in Asset declarations

The URIAssetFactory is located in the chenillekit-core module 2009/1/30 Massimo Lusetti <mlusetti@xxxxxxxxx> > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > <thiagohp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think Dave is trying to have an asset URL defined dinamically, not > > its content . . . For dynamic content, I would use StreamResponse too. > > ;) > > Look in the chenillkit project, there's an implementation of > AssetFactory based on an URL or maybe URI, it could give you ideas. > > -- > Massimo > http://meridio.blogspot.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- with regards Sven Homburg http://www.chenillekit.org http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: T5 : validation of radiogroup fields

Am i the only one to have such a need ??? A radiogroup is quite the same thing (except for the graphical representation) as a select box (without multiple choice activated). So i think that he should have the same validate attribute as the select box and copy its behavior : if the radio group field is required, the first radio item should be checked by default. Stephane Stephane Decleire a écrit : > I don't understand why the radiogroup component doesn't have a validate > field like the other form field components ... > And what is the prefered way to set a radiogroup field as required ? > > Stephane > > > >