commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: [Jelly] Modularization: To Return A Non XMLOutput/String Object
Date Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:54:13 GMT
Then maybe using TagSupport.findAncestorWithClass() would help ?
I am not sure wether a tagscript can actually access its tag object 
(simply using "this" in jexl ?), if yes than I am pretty sure it extends 
TagSupport (and probably even MapTagSupport) so that this method is 
accessible...

To me it's a kind of "rich" return value, which has the advantage of 
being transparent to such things as iteration type of parents.
I am not sure it would work within an imported tag though... that would 
interest me!

Paul


Bill Keese wrote:
> Note that things are a little different depending on if your functions are
> written in java or in jelly.  If you write custom tags in Jelly (via
> define:tagLib
> and define:tag), then in order to set a variable in the parent context, you
> have
> to do something tricky like           ${context.setExport(true)} (which
> exports
> all variables set after this call), or something like
> ${context.getParent().setVariable('foo', bar)}
> 
> 
> 
>>>The only problem is that when my custom tags are
>>>evaluated, it can only return XMLOutput/String and not
>>>any other object.
> 
> 
> Of course, you can encode any return information you want in
> the XMLOutput/String return value.   You can then parse this return value
> using xml:parse.  Something like
> 
>    <x:parse var="myReturnCodeDocument">
>         <myTagLib:myTab foo="bar>
>    </x:parse>
> 
> Then you can access the contents of myReturnCodeDocument using
> the XPath related functions in the XML library.  But it's a real hassle to
> do things
> that way.
> 
> Maybe the right approach, whenever possible, is to handle return values the
> same
> way as in XSL or lisp programs.  So, instead of doing things like in C:
>       a1 = func1();
>       a2 = func2();
>       a3 = func3 ( a1, a2 )
> 
> you should do something like this:
>        func3 ( func1() ,  func2() )
> 
> In Jelly the syntax is
>    <func3>
>           <arg1><func1/></arg1>
>            <arg2><func2/></arg2>
>    </func3>
> 
> Of course, inside of func3 you may have to call xml:parse in order to use
> XPath to parse the input XML document:
>    <x:parse var="myInputDocument"><define:invokeBody/></x:parse>
>    <core:set var="arg1"><x:expr
> select="$myInputDocument/arg1/*"/></core:set>
>    <core:set var="arg2"><x:expr
> select="$myInputDocument/arg2/*"/></core:set>
>    ...
> 
> Personally, I wish that XPath was better integrated in Jelly, basically like
> the
> XSL language.
> Then, you wouldn't have to do the intermediate step of calling xml:parse and
> core:set/x:expr (see example above).
> 
> Bill
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@activemath.org>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Jelly] Modularization: To Return A Non XMLOutput/String Object
> 
> 
> 
>>Harold Russell wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I've been experimenting with Jelly to determine if it
>>>is suitable to use as a general purpose prototyping
>>>language. First thing I was trying to do was to write
>>>code that are "modularized." By "modularized" I meant
>>>something like a function which has its own local
>>>variable scope.
>>>
>>>My first try was using a define:taglib and define:tag
>>>tags to create my own custom tag. I can "call" this
>>>"module" by using the tag and attributes as input
>>>parameters. This is the closest thing that resembles a
>>>reusable "module"/"function" as the code inside the
>>>tag has its own variable scope.
>>>
>>>The only problem is that when my custom tags are
>>>evaluated, it can only return XMLOutput/String and not
>>>any other object.



Mime
View raw message