Re: [Jelly] Modularization: To Return A Non XMLOutput/String Object

[Robert McIntosh <RE...@kcc.usda.gov>]

I personally don't remember a thread about have return values for tags,
but most tags do put things into the JellyContext with their 'var'
attribute and there is also the j:set tag for setting a variable which
we use as a 'return type'. 

Even with that however, we use Jelly as an all purpose scripting
language without the XMLOutput. In most cases we even modularize it and
use the import tag to having one script invoke another script. We then
use the JellyContext to get out all of the values that we are looking
for. Yes it will contain other things you don't need, but in our case
anyway, we don't particularly care about that. 

Robert

>>> paul@activemath.org 06/06/03 03:53PM >>>
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. 
> 
> Does anyone have any advice on writing "modularized"
> code in Jelly? 

The way it is done into such things as jelly-swing is that the tag 
climbs the hierarchy to the first possible ancestor tag that can
receive 
a result and "adds" it there.
(namely, this is how a component is added to a container).

There has been a long thread however about having return values for
tags.

Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org 

Re: [Jelly] Modularization: To Return A Non XMLOutput/StringObject

[Bill Keese <bi...@tech.beacon-it.co.jp>]

Ah, I see.  The child function returns an output value w/a statement like
this:
  <j:set var="myOutputVar1" scope="parent" value="myOutputValue"/>

Cool.

Bill

--------------------------
<j:jelly xmlns:j="jelly:core" xmlns:define="jelly:define"
xmlns:myTagLib="myTagLib">

  <define:taglib uri="myTagLib">
    <define:tag name="innerFunc">
      <j:set var="myOutputVar1" scope="parent" value="myOutputValue"/>
    </define:tag>

    <define:tag name="outerFunc">
      <myTagLib:innerFunc/>
      outerFunc called innerFunc and the return value was ${myOutputVar1}
    </define:tag>
  </define:taglib>

  <myTagLib:outerFunc/>

</j:jelly>

--------------------------

$ ../jelly outputVarTest.jelly

      outerFunc called innerFunc and the return value was myOutputValue

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert McIntosh" <RE...@kcc.usda.gov>
To: <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Modularization: To Return A Non XMLOutput/StringObject


> I personally don't remember a thread about have return values for tags,
> but most tags do put things into the JellyContext with their 'var'
> attribute and there is also the j:set tag for setting a variable which
> we use as a 'return type'.
>
> Even with that however, we use Jelly as an all purpose scripting
> language without the XMLOutput. In most cases we even modularize it and
> use the import tag to having one script invoke another script. We then
> use the JellyContext to get out all of the values that we are looking
> for. Yes it will contain other things you don't need, but in our case
> anyway, we don't particularly care about that.
>
> Robert
>
> >>> paul@activemath.org 06/06/03 03:53PM >>>
> 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.
> >
> > Does anyone have any advice on writing "modularized"
> > code in Jelly?
>
> The way it is done into such things as jelly-swing is that the tag
> climbs the hierarchy to the first possible ancestor tag that can
> receive
> a result and "adds" it there.
> (namely, this is how a component is added to a container).
>
> There has been a long thread however about having return values for
> tags.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>