cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] CForms instruction set for jxtg rendering vs. jx-macros.xml file
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 16:08:06 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Leszek Gawron wrote:
>> I have refactored JXTG recently so now instructions like jx:for, jx:if 
>> are defined in separate file: 
>> src/block/template/java/org/apache/cocoon/template/template-instructions.xml 
>> Right now we are rendering forms in jxtg using a macro file which is 
>> kind of ugly IMO - see yourself: 
>> src/blocks/forms/java/org/apache/cocoon/forms/generation/jx-macros.xml
>> I could fairly easily reimplement jx-macros.xml into more elegant java 
>> solution by implementing a separate set of instructions like 
>> ft:widget, ft:repeater and so on. If you let me of course.
>> I do not want to start a tag library war. If cforms and jxtg are core 
>> features they should closely support each other.
>> This is NOT the case of allowing arbitrary instruction sets to be 
>> created. CForms case only.
>> Plase cast your votes:
>> [ ] Yes go for it.
>> [ ] It's a bad idea - leave jx-macros.xml untouched!
>> [x] It's not jx-macros.xml fault. CForms should be changed if current
>>     solution isn't right.
> It might be a naive view, but IMO from a view POV a form model should be 
> a rather simple data structure and the kind of thing that a good 
> template language should excel in rendering.
> If the rendering macros become ugly it is IMO a sign that we have work 
> left to do. Either the form model need to be made more view friendly, or 
> we need to find more powerfull general purpose instructions to the 
> template language (or both). Or the problem is more complicated than I 
> think ;)
> Anyway, I think we should try to understand the issue a little bit 
> better before we try to just hack around it.



View raw message