You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> on 2004/12/04 16:47:57 UTC
JXTG: Imposible test case.
Hi:
I remember some threads related to the (ab)use of too many syntaxes in
Cocoon. Is posible to point to some imposible constructions in the
current JXTG? Perhaps my narrow mind don't allow me to see them. What I
see is a lot of similar languages with diferent syntax sugar: velocity,
jelly, TAL, etc. Please don't get me wrong. I want to help too. I need to
see some use cases first. :-D
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 17:01, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
> Its not about syntax checking its about WYSIWYG for the HTML, read
> Stefano's and Niclas' answers.
Yep. I read the mails after posting the mail.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 10:22, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
<snip/>
> I never used Dreamwaver (not sure if this is a shame to me). What I use is
> jEdit - http://www.jedit.org/ . It is only a 2.5MB java installer + some
> cool plugins. If what we need is a syntax checker + highlighting for JTXG,
> we can write it for jEdit:
>
> http://www.jedit.org/42docs/api/org/gjt/sp/jedit/syntax/package-summary.html
Its not about syntax checking its about WYSIWYG for the HTML, read
Stefano's and Niclas' answers.
> It is easier that refactor a language just to fit in a tool. BTW, I never
> heard about a similar case before. ;-)
>>And if one put the directives
>>in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works
>>much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and
>>easier to read also.
>
> Why? To me this a matter of taste.
If taste not is important for you, it shouldn't matter ;)
>>I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates,
>>that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven
>>templates from the same implementation.
>
>
> If people blame us because they can use #{$...} or ${...} I don't know
> what to expect by adding new istructions syntax. The result seems to be:
> "more troubles than help."
>
>
>>So we could resue the JXTG tags as attribute directives and
>>avoid the need for maintaining double implementations.
>
>
> See the last comment. While I understand a potentiall "gain" from the
> developers POV. I see a nightmare for users. ;-)
As said above, read Stefano's and Niclas mails for motivation and
explanation about why it would be very usefull for some users.
/Daniel
Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 10:22, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> I remember some threads related to the (ab)use of too many syntaxes in
>> Cocoon. Is posible to point to some imposible constructions in the
>> current JXTG? Perhaps my narrow mind don't allow me to see them. What I
>> see is a lot of similar languages with diferent syntax sugar: velocity,
>> jelly, TAL, etc. Please don't get me wrong. I want to help too. I need
>> to
>> see some use cases first. :-D
>
> No constructions that anyone has required are imposible in JXTG syntax
> AFAIK. It is rather that some people want to be able to edit the
> template in Dreamweaver and similar tools.
I never used Dreamwaver (not sure if this is a shame to me). What I use is
jEdit - http://www.jedit.org/ . It is only a 2.5MB java installer + some
cool plugins. If what we need is a syntax checker + highlighting for JTXG,
we can write it for jEdit:
http://www.jedit.org/42docs/api/org/gjt/sp/jedit/syntax/package-summary.html
It is easier that refactor a language just to fit in a tool. BTW, I never
heard about a similar case before. ;-)
> And if one put the directives
> in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works
> much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and
> easier to read also.
Why? To me this a matter of taste.
> I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates,
> that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven
> templates from the same implementation.
If people blame us because they can use #{$...} or ${...} I don't know
what to expect by adding new istructions syntax. The result seems to be:
"more troubles than help."
> So we could resue the JXTG tags as attribute directives and
> avoid the need for maintaining double implementations.
See the last comment. While I understand a potentiall "gain" from the
developers POV. I see a nightmare for users. ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: JXTG: Imposible test case.
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I remember some threads related to the (ab)use of too many syntaxes in
> Cocoon. Is posible to point to some imposible constructions in the
> current JXTG? Perhaps my narrow mind don't allow me to see them. What I
> see is a lot of similar languages with diferent syntax sugar: velocity,
> jelly, TAL, etc. Please don't get me wrong. I want to help too. I need to
> see some use cases first. :-D
No constructions that anyone has required are imposible in JXTG syntax
AFAIK. It is rather that some people want to be able to edit the
template in Dreamweaver and similar tools. And if one put the directives
in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works
much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and
easier to read also.
I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates,
that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven
templates from the same implementation. So we could resue the JXTG tags
as attribute directives and avoid the need for maintaining double
implementations.
/Daniel