cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: CForms view model? (was Re: Externalizing JXTG tag configuration)
Date Thu, 12 May 2005 14:17:50 GMT
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
>
>>> Depending on how it's done, it can be a good thing. IMHO,
>>>
>>>   public XMLizable getLabel();
>>>
>>> seems like a right approach to me; and templating language should be 
>>> more than happy to work with XMLizable objects, so to render a label 
>>> you don't need anything more than:
>>>
>>>   #{widget/label}
>>
>>
>> Interesting idea, but which questions the actual need for a form 
>> template language, as <ft:widget id="foo"/> could be equally written 
>> ${form.foo}.
>>
>> IMO we shouldn't go that far. A problem of flowscript is that its 
>> programmatic power forbids writing graphical tools to visually layout 
>> the page flow. By removing the form template language, we would 
>> similarily forbid the use of visual tools (e.g. dreamweaver or 
>> htmlarea extensions) to define a form template.
>
>
> IMO these are different concerns. The fact that you could write 
> ${form.foo}, instead of <ft:widget id="foo"/> doesn't mean that we 
> have to take away <ft:widget id="foo"/> or any tools support.
>
> I think the advantages of using XMLizable are so big that we should go 
> that way.


+1.

Along with writing the Tree widget, I'm writing a proposal to refactor 
the CForms API, which unfortunately will bring some backwards 
incompatibility but will make it way more template-friendly.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                        Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain            http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member     Research & Technology Director


Mime
View raw message