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: <428214EE.80902@odoko.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:21:34 +0100
From: Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
Organization: Odoko Ltd
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] CForms instruction set for jxtg rendering vs.
 jx-macros.xml
 file
References: <42821005.8060301@mobilebox.pl> <42821141.2000608@odoko.co.uk>
 <42821430.90903@mobilebox.pl>
In-Reply-To: <42821430.90903@mobilebox.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Upayavira 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!
>>> [ ] It's not jx-macros.xml fault. CForms should be changed if current
>>>     solution isn't right.
>>
>>
>>
>> And have the code for these extensions in the forms block (ie. forms 
>> depends upon templates)? +1
> 
> forms block of course - just like current jx-macros.file.
> 
>> Can your code handle that?

Then +1 from me.

Upayavira