cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bart Molenkamp" <>
Subject RE: [CForms] Change proposal in Custom bindings
Date Tue, 07 Sep 2004 07:15:56 GMT
Your solution works, tetting path to "." and passing another path in a
config element works. But I don't think it's a logical solution, since
all binding elements look like <fb:... id="x" path="y"/>, except for
this one, where the path is passed in a config node.

There is still a (small) problem however, I need a service manager.

If I want to straigt for my own binding builder, I have another very
very small change I need. The class
JXPathBindingBuilderBase.CommonAttributes and the method
getCommonAttributes() needs public (or protected) scope. That way I can
create the builder in my own packages.


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Portier [] 
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CForms] Change proposal in Custom bindings

I had a quick scan through your problem and patches (and sorry for not 
doing that earlier)

AFAICS you would get the same effect by just ommitting the xpath from 
the binding and adding it as a nested config

ie not
   <fb:custom id="x" path="something"
              factorymethod="createBinding" />

but rather
   <fb:custom id="config"
              factorymethod="createBinding" >
       <fb:config propspath="some" />

that way the path="." will be assumed on the wrapper and the 
parent-context will be passed down so your custom binding can narrow 
down with the local config 'propspath' (potentially checking for null's 


if you need more control then this, I suggest skipping the 
custom-binding alltogether and go straight for the own builder and 
binding + declaring the builder in the xconf file. (you're not that far


above seems to indicate that what you need can be done already, pls 
comment if that is not the case


Bart Molenkamp wrote:
> Hi all,
> A few weeks ago I made a request for a small change in
> CustomJXPathBinding. It can be found here [1]. I already implemented
> change, made a patch, and placed it in bugzilla [2]. But noone was
> me some response to this change (maybe due to vacations?) So I was
> wondering; are there people interested in this change, or do I need to
> maintain this change in the source tree of my project?
> Bart.
> [1]
> [2]

Marc Portier                  
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                          

View raw message