[Laszlo-dev] Changing lzt=html to lzt=wrapper?

[Henry Minsky]

Well, I will volunteer to put in the new syntax, we should file an
enhancement request and
Jim can maybe decide if/when to do this.


On 1/19/07, Max Carlson <max at openlaszlo.org> wrote:
>
> Yes yes yes!!! This is something we've wanted to do for a long time.
> Making this change without preserving backward compatibility will have a
> lot of fallout, so we should deprecate the old format (and maybe warn)
> if we do this.
>
> -Max
>
> P T Withington wrote:
> > I'd rather change lz(request)t(ype) to lzw(rapper).  Better yet, we've
> > discussed a number of times trying to unify the lz? options, perhaps by
> > saying something like:
> >
> >   ?lzoptions=runtime:dhtml,wrapper:html,debug:false,proxy:true
> >
> > [I don't know for a fact that that is or is not a legitimate URI query
> > parameter syntax, or if : and , already have reserved meanings in query
> > parameters.  Presumably we could come up with something along those
> lines.]
> >
> > Similarly, the litany of server requests that are lumped into the ?lzt
> > argument should be split out as something like:
> >
> >   ?lzoptions=request:clear-cache
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > The biggest benefit is that we would remove a lot of pollution from the
> > query arg space (especially the non-lz-prefixed args like profile,
> > proxy, etc.).
> >
> > If `runtime:dhtml,wrapper:html` is still confusing, I suggest we change
> > dhtml to ajax.
> >
> > On 2007-01-18, at 20:36 EST, David Temkin wrote:
> >
> >> With the addition of lzr=dhtml, lzt=html has become pretty confusing.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on deprecating lzt=html in favor of lzt=wrapper, or
> >> something along those lines?
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Max Carlson
> OpenLaszlo.org
>



-- 
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
hminsky at laszlosystems.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-dev/attachments/20070119/55ecfee4/attachment.html