cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [cforms] Custom Binding.
Date Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:36:06 GMT


Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 30.03.2004 08:45, Marc Portier wrote:
> 
>> hm, if SoC is the argument, then shouldn't we consider the who is 
>> doing what discussion?
>>
>> my feeling is that touching the xconf is out of question to a lot of 
>> users? They could easily write up a custom-binding and be glad they 
>> never need to learn about the xconf in the first place?
> 
> 
> I don't know if I follow this argumentation. Having configuration 
> splitted over multiple files might help the user at the beginning, but 
> can lead to a nightmare at the end. But maybe I just want to do anything 
> to perfect :)
> 

nope, I think you are right, and I have to admit the xconf is not the 
real pain here, but I doubth it would help:

the only config part that would make sense on the xconf level is the 
class-name, the rest would be local config that needs to be in the 
binding file anyway (like you say: why scatter it around in different 
places?)

see: the big goal of this thingy would in fact to throw in a custom 
binding when the jxpath isn't helping out,

this calls for a simple straightforward class IMHO (like the nested 
fb:javascript/on-save and on-load code) and only if people think they 
need the additional local-config then they should provide a factory 
method that nows how to deal with that

at that moment I think jxpath and/or avalon dependencies are just over 
the top for the binding-problem the user wants to solve?

wdot?
-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