cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <>
Subject Re: [vote] Switching to refactored JXTG
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:30:42 GMT
Ugo Cei wrote:

> Il giorno 13/apr/05, alle 16:47, Daniel Fagerstrom ha scritto:
>> I propose that we (in trunk) remove the current JXTG and replace it 
>> with the refactored JXTG that is part of the Template block. The 
>> refactored JXTG is supposed to be back compatible with the original 
>> JXTG and also add the ability to use JXTG in the same way in a non 
>> flow context. The only change will be that one has to include the 
>> Template block to get JXTG it will not be part of core anymore. We 
>> change the class name of the refactored JXTG to that of the old one.
> I just have a small fear about this. If we switch to the refactored 
> JXTG in 2.2, we will have three branches to work on:
> - fixing bugs in the old JXTG in 2.1, even though no new features are 
> added


> - fixing bugs in the refactored JXTG in 2.2 and maybe adding new 
> features, since 2.2 is going to stay around for a long time.
> - developing the new TemplateGenerator.

This is not exactly two braches. After the refactoring we have a 
configurable template framework (still some things left to do to get 
there, but we are close). So JXTG and CTemplate will share almost all 
code. They will differ in their configuration files and some of the 
instructions might be in two different versions, if we want it that way. 
As an example, the jx:import instruction and jx:set instruction have 
peculiarities that we propbably want to get rid of in CTemplate, but 
that we might want to keep in JXTG for back compability reasons.

> As long as the refactored JXTG is backward compatible, what's stopping 
> us from dropping the old one completely?

We should test the refactored JXTG in trunk for some while before 
droping the old one in 2.1. We also chosed not to have a copy of the 
Template block in 2.1 as it would complicate the development work to 
keep two branches in synch. But we can copy it to 2.1 when/if the 
community want it that way.


View raw message