Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46D2B139.3010805@nada.kth.se>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:10:49 +0200
From: Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: cocoon-template incompatible change
References: <46CEF3FE.2080701@mobilebox.pl> <46CEFF27.6040602@tuffmail.com>
 <46D05EC6.9010604@mobilebox.pl> <46D06D26.50600@apache.org>
 <46D2877E.3070807@mobilebox.pl> <46D28EAC.9000400@apache.org>
 <46D29130.9070105@mobilebox.pl> <46D294EF.3040405@apache.org>
 <46D2980A.8020808@mobilebox.pl> <46D29D49.6080904@nada.kth.se>
 <46D29FFD.9070705@mobilebox.pl>
In-Reply-To: <46D29FFD.9070705@mobilebox.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Leszek Gawron skrev:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>> Leszek Gawron skrev:
>>> Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
>>>> Leszek Gawron pisze:
>> ...
>>>> I remember that I have read that discussion and I agree that there 
>>>> was no clear consensus.
>>>>
>>>> I also remember that there were several folks expressing their 
>>>> opinion that jx should as far from
>>>> imperative programming language as possible. I second that opinion 
>>>> so I'm quite concerned with your
>>>> example. It is a programming language.
>>>> XSLT lives without such constructs so could you give us a use case 
>>>> for this one?
>> We should leave the behaviour of JXTG exactly as is. The template 
>> framework (yes it actually is designed to be a framework even if we 
>> haven't used this) makes it easy to create a new template language. 
>> So if you don't like the way JXTG is designed you should design a new 
>> template language that has an own generator and an own namespace.
>
> Who did you address this statement to? Me or Grzegorz?
Grzegorz

> Thing is last refactorings introduced backward incompatibilities. I 
> tried to upgrade to next internal release and my webapp went nuts. By 
> saying "we should leave the behaviour as is" you mean we should keep 
> those incompatible changes?
No I mean that we should keep the behaviour that we have in 2.1.x for JXTG.

...
>> We had a discussion about what to have in a new CTemplate language, 
>> see http://marc.info/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=110942299719102&w=2. Maybe 
>> it is time to review if the ideas there still holds and then continue 
>> the work on creating a CTemplate language.
>
> Do you bookmark these? I never seem to be able to find the right 
> thread to reference and you're always shootings with URLs. :)
No I tend to remember what I have written and then I search for my name 
in marc.info, and browse backwards until I find the thread.

/Daniel