Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <33214.10.0.0.5.1102188895.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
In-Reply-To: <41B1E441.2010800@nada.kth.se>
References: <32854.10.0.0.5.1102175277.squirrel@www.agssa.net>
    <41B1E441.2010800@nada.kth.se>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:34:55 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
From: "Antonio Gallardo" <agallardo@agssa.net>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-6.FC2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal

On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 10:22, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I remember some threads related to the (ab)use of too many syntaxes in
>> Cocoon. Is posible to  point to some imposible constructions in the
>> current JXTG? Perhaps my narrow mind don't allow me to see them. What I
>> see is a lot of similar languages with diferent syntax sugar: velocity,
>> jelly, TAL, etc. Please don't get me wrong. I want to help too. I need
>> to
>> see some use cases first. :-D
>
> No constructions that anyone has required are imposible in JXTG syntax
> AFAIK. It is rather that some people want to be able to edit the
> template in Dreamweaver and similar tools.

I never used Dreamwaver (not sure if this is a shame to me). What I use is
jEdit - http://www.jedit.org/ . It is only a 2.5MB java installer + some
cool plugins. If what we need is a syntax checker + highlighting for JTXG,
we can write it for jEdit:

http://www.jedit.org/42docs/api/org/gjt/sp/jedit/syntax/package-summary.html

It is easier that refactor a language just to fit in a tool. BTW, I never
heard about a similar case before. ;-)

> And if one put the directives
> in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works
> much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and
> easier to read also.

Why? To me this a matter of taste.

> I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates,
> that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven
> templates from the same implementation.

If people blame us because they can use #{$...} or ${...} I don't know
what to expect by adding new istructions syntax. The result seems to be:
"more troubles than help."

> So we could resue the JXTG tags as attribute directives and
> avoid the need for maintaining double implementations.

See the last comment. While I understand a potentiall "gain" from the
developers POV. I see a nightmare for users. ;-)

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.