On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 11:09, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
> >Sylvain Wallez dijo:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Woody'ers
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Wondering about in his Australian meaning! lol.
> >
> >
>
> Oops... Hope I haven't said something dirty ;-)
dirtyness is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> >>Lately, I encountered several use cases where I found that the current
> >><wt:repeater-widget> we have today is not enough.
> >>
<snip/>
> >>So I was thinking to add new esql-like statements (analoguous to
> esql:results, esql:no-results, etc) in the woody template.
> >>
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >>
sounds good
> >>But I'm also wondering, as woody usage increases, if we will not
> need to write form templates involving more and more conditional
> parts. And for this, JXTemplate shines.
Contrasting this:
> But mixing jx-like access to the form model with wt: templates
> elements is likely to quickly become unnatural. A solution could be to
> augment the JXTemplate syntax with new Woody-related instructions.
> Taglibs for JXTemplate?
with this:
> <snip/> I agree with this, and was more or
> less thinking to having the woody taglib to define the exact same tags
> than the transformer does, _plus_ some additional tags.
it wouldn't change much for the user, except for not having to put the
woody transformer in the pipeline?
I see several positive points though:
* it would make it more obvious for the user that they can be combined
* making a generator out of it has the advantage that the template can
be precompiled into an object model, which might make it easier to
implement certain things then in SAX-streaming mode.
About the only disadvantage I can think of is that it forces the usage
of JXTemplate. What if we suddenly realize Garbage is much better?
(haven't look at it yet).
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
bruno@outerthought.org bruno@apache.org
|