Re: [Templates] Summary and Voting aspects

[Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>]

Glen Ezkovich wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2004, at 4:18 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> Refactoring JXTG
>> ================
>
> I think everything starts here. Once this gets refactored the 
> opportunities for further development should become apparent. There is 
> nothing terribly wrong with JXTG, except that it is a monolithic class 
> with monolithic methods. 

Yes, my current view is that I feel unconfortable with starting from 
scratch 
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/articles/fog0000000348.html). 
Fun or not, we should just build a large test set arround JXTG and 
refactor it, towards the kind of architecture that we have discussed in 
previous discussions.

We can do that work on a copy of JXTG in the template block. There is 
not that much activity on the current codebase, so I think it easier to 
keep them syncronized than working on everything whithin core. I have 
started some work in that direction and will put them in SVN as soon as 
I get my splitted version of JXTG to compile again :/

>> For 1), the back compabillity preserving refactoring of JXTG. I 
>> cannot see any need for voting about this. Either it gains community 
>> support in terms of that people joins in design, implementation and 
>> testing, or it don't. And in that case we just remove it. Then if the 
>> new refactored implementation should replace the current one and get 
>> "oficial status", thats certainly something to vote about. Also if we 
>> develop some new interfaces e.g. for ELs or formaters that we feel 
>> that should be made part of core, it will also be something that 
>> should be handled by proposals and votes.
>>
>> I can assure you that I have no urge to implement everything myself 
>> at all (as some of you might have noticed I enjoy design descussions 
>> and proposals more than implementing stuff ;) ),
>
> You mean some people actually LIKE to implement stuff? ;-) 

I do, but not as much as discussing the design ;)

>>  I will continue to strive for community involvment. And I will write 
>> a proposal about how to continue the refactoring as soon as I find time.
>
>> Next Generation JXTG
>> ====================
>>
>> This is about how we should continue our development of the template 
>> language beyond JXTG 1.0. It is purely at the RT stage, no concrete 
>> design proposals yet. Later there might be proposals in form of 
>> documents or proof of concept implementations. But that is a later 
>> question.
>
> And an interesting discussion. I think once people look at the 
> refactored JXTG and have an itch to scratch you will see a few 
> attempts at expression language development. 

Yes, the current monolith makes that far to hard.

>> Attribute Driven Templating
>> ===========================
>>
>> This is ongoing discussions. My hope is that we can design the 
>> template engine in such a way that the synatx handling part is 
>> plugable so that attribute and tag driven templates (JXTG) can 
>> coexist, (although not in the same document ;) ).
>
> I'm guessing that after refactoring JXTG you will see that this is 
> easily doable. I'm only guessing because I have only taken a brief 
> look at JXTG's code, but one of the goals of refactoring is to 
> organize the code properly. 

Yes, it will be easily doable after refactoring.

>>  But that is a technical quiestion IMO. Anyway, we need to discuss 
>> the consequences of dirrerent syntaxes a little bit more before 
>> implementing anything.
>
> You mean defining the language. No one wants to implement. ;-) 

Actually there are some people around here that prefer programming to 
discussing. And a few impresive persons who manage to be active in both 
areas :)

> Glen Ezkovich
> HardBop Consulting
> glen at hard-bop.com
> http://www.hard-bop.com
>
> A Proverb for Paranoids:
> "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to 
> worry about answers."
> - Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow 

Cool, one of my favourite books.

Re: [Templates] Summary and Voting aspects

[Glen Ezkovich <gl...@hard-bop.com>]

On Dec 8, 2004, at 5:37 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:

>>
>> You mean defining the language. No one wants to implement. ;-)
>
> Actually there are some people around here that prefer programming to 
> discussing. And a few impresive persons who manage to be active in 
> both areas :)

Ahhhh.... that explains why there is a Cocoon and not just a set of 
requirements. :-)

Glen Ezkovich
HardBop Consulting
glen at hard-bop.com
http://www.hard-bop.com



A Proverb for Paranoids:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to 
worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow