cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: Rename "union" to "select"?
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:59:23 GMT


Tim Larson wrote:

> --- Sylvain Wallez <sylvain@apache.org> wrote:
> 

<snip/>

> 
>>Also, it seems to me that "class", "struct" and "new" are variations 
>>around the concept of widget groups. We could then have:

naah, they just happen to be able to contain some other stuff (much like 
aggregator and even repeater)

>>- "group-template" for "class"
>>- "group-instance" for "new"
>>- "group" for "struct"
>>
>>How does it sound?
> 

don't like it, the fact that these can contain nested widgets is no 
justification for the added group-prefix?

we should go for names that describe what they are doing

struct --> group makes sense

(and leave me some time yet to see the difference/line up between 
aggregate and struct)

however for the other two I'm more into
class --> define, declare,
new   --> use, reference,

but as you say, the nouns might make more sense

class --> definition
new   --> instance

other takers?

> 
> Sounds like a correct analysis.  The group-* names may cause some
> misunderstanding however, because of the different semantics of
> "struct" versus "new".  "struct" exists to wrap a set of widgets
> in a namespace, while "new" does not providing a wrapping namespace.
> The original idea was to allow several uses of "new" to include
> several classes into a "union", with each class providing multiple
> additional choices (cases) for the union.  Should we change "new"
> to have it provide a wrapping namespace?  Then we would have to
> support union cases with names like "some-namespace.some-widgetname".
> How would this interact with your union proposal below?
> 
> I like the proposed names if we can solve this cleanly, and deal with
> the first two being so long...
> 
> 
>>Note also that we can make a direct parallel between "wd:group" (former 
>>"struct") and the instance-only "wi:group" wigets I introduced in 
>>woody-page-styling.xsl.
> 
> 
> I am interested.  Would you explain what you are thinking in more detail?
> 

more interest from my side

onto a related topic: after my recent attempts to revive the 
woody-generator (and attempting to see a better fit with the recent 
jx:macro stuff) I was thinking about introducing a wt:group to 
dynamically run through all the      nested widgets (just like the 
generator is doing: see the setup for my recent binding-samples: it has 
some potential if the template can be abolished and the form builds up 
dynamically)

<snip />

regards,
-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org


Mime
View raw message