cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: [VOTE RESULTS] CForms instruction set for jxtg rendering vs. jx-macros.xml file
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 21:41:18 GMT
Leszek Gawron 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.
> 
> 2 in favour: me and Upayavira
> 
>> [ ] It's a bad idea - leave jx-macros.xml untouched!
>> [ ] It's not jx-macros.xml fault. CForms should be changed if current
>>     solution isn't right.
> 
> 2 in favour: Daniel and Vadim
> 
> So what now?

Sylvain said that he is workking on a proposal about refactoring the 
CForms API in the end of the "CForms view model?" thread and also 
proposed to have we could have more reflection friendly repeaters. Vadim 
proposed to use XMLizable in the API instead of direct seting of content 
handlers. With these changes the jx-macros probably will be quite 
straight forward.

I would propose that you wait and see.

/Daniel

Mime
View raw message