Tapestry Training -- From The Source

Let me help you get your team up to speed in Tapestry ... fast. Visit howardlewisship.com for details on training, mentoring and support!

Monday, February 28, 2005

Simplify, Simplify

Getting more and more interesting things done in the Tapestry 3.1 code base is getting easier and easier.

One complaint I've gotten about Tapestry 3.0 is that, even if you use all implicit style components on a page, you still need to provide an XML page specification, just to specify the page class name.

I just checked in some changes to how page class names are determined; there's now an chain of command, that starts with the page specification itself, and ends with a default page class name.

In the middle is a new workhorse: NamespaceClassSearchPageClassProvider. This short little class gets a property from the namespace (the containing application or library specification). The property is a list of package names to search, looking for the page's class. So you might add <meta key="org.apache.tapestry.page-class-packages" value="org.mycompany.myproject"/> to the application specification, and just put your page classes into the org.mycompany.myproject package. And you're done.

It's a command separated list of package names, so you can have a couple of packages to search.

I think, gradually, the XML side of Tapestry will wither. I already have plans to support JDK 1.5 annotations in Tapestry to control a lot of the things you would currently do using XML ... and for some things, the XML is still the best approach.

I suspect that in the Tapestry 4.0 time frame, we'll re-organize the artifact triumvirate (specification, class, template) such that we start with the page or component class, then locate the optional specification and template. In 3.1 (and earlier) we start with the page name, find the spec, determine the page class from the spec.

1 comment:

Ahmed Mohombe said...

I hope, Javascript-XML-RPC will find it's way in Tapestry too. Even if not all components will be able to use it, at least the server should support it, so that future/new componets can add support for it. There are a lot of frameworks for XML-RPC, so maybe one of them could be used as a reference how to integrate such a thing: