4.0: what was property-specification

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

4.0: what was property-specification

Gregg D Bolinger
In 3.0 we did a property-specification for each property in the Java file
and declared a type, etc. The property-specification tag went way, obviously
in 4.0. In fact, It would seem that you don't need to do anything similar in
4.0 for it to all work. Is this correct? Should I still be specifying a
<property> with a persist attribute for the page? Like I said, it works
without it. I am still able to call my abstract getXXXX method and it gives
me the appropriate value from a ValidField.

Gregg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.0: what was property-specification

Erik Hatcher
On May 10, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:

> In 3.0 we did a property-specification for each property in the  
> Java file
> and declared a type, etc. The property-specification tag went way,  
> obviously
> in 4.0. In fact, It would seem that you don't need to do anything  
> similar in
> 4.0 for it to all work. Is this correct? Should I still be  
> specifying a
> <property> with a persist attribute for the page? Like I said, it  
> works
> without it. I am still able to call my abstract getXXXX method and  
> it gives
> me the appropriate value from a ValidField.

The differences that I know of are that you don't specify a type and  
persist="session" is used instead of the 3.0 "yes" value - this is to  
allow different persistence strategies in the future.

     Erik



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.0: what was property-specification

Gregg D Bolinger
But if it works without it and you don't care about the persistant strategy,
then I don't need it, right? I mean, it working without it not a bug.

Gregg

On 5/10/05, Erik Hatcher <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On May 10, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
>
> > In 3.0 we did a property-specification for each property in the
> > Java file
> > and declared a type, etc. The property-specification tag went way,
> > obviously
> > in 4.0. In fact, It would seem that you don't need to do anything
> > similar in
> > 4.0 for it to all work. Is this correct? Should I still be
> > specifying a
> > <property> with a persist attribute for the page? Like I said, it
> > works
> > without it. I am still able to call my abstract getXXXX method and
> > it gives
> > me the appropriate value from a ValidField.
>
> The differences that I know of are that you don't specify a type and
> persist="session" is used instead of the 3.0 "yes" value - this is to
> allow different persistence strategies in the future.
>
> Erik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4.0: what was property-specification

Howard Lewis Ship
Any simple abtract properties in the page or component that are not
otherwise accounted for will be turned into transient page properties.
 If you want them to be persistent, then you must add the <property>
element to the specification.

On 5/10/05, Gregg D Bolinger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But if it works without it and you don't care about the persistant strategy,
> then I don't need it, right? I mean, it working without it not a bug.
>
> Gregg
>
> On 5/10/05, Erik Hatcher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On May 10, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
> >
> > > In 3.0 we did a property-specification for each property in the
> > > Java file
> > > and declared a type, etc. The property-specification tag went way,
> > > obviously
> > > in 4.0. In fact, It would seem that you don't need to do anything
> > > similar in
> > > 4.0 for it to all work. Is this correct? Should I still be
> > > specifying a
> > > <property> with a persist attribute for the page? Like I said, it
> > > works
> > > without it. I am still able to call my abstract getXXXX method and
> > > it gives
> > > me the appropriate value from a ValidField.
> >
> > The differences that I know of are that you don't specify a type and
> > persist="session" is used instead of the 3.0 "yes" value - this is to
> > allow different persistence strategies in the future.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>


--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]