You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2005/02/02 19:30:59 UTC
Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
Today I found out, that even these two components use different
identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id, you
use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in the forms
transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And the annoying
part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is deprecated.
I think this is really confusing.
So, anyone against using the same object model in these components? This
means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer and at
the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
Carsten
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
> transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
> Today I found out, that even these two components use different
> identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id, you
> use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in the forms
> transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And the annoying
> part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is deprecated.
> I think this is really confusing.
>
> So, anyone against using the same object model in these components? This
> means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer and at
> the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
Why this on docs list?
Vadim
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>
>>> Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
>>> transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
>>> Today I found out, that even these two components use different
>>> identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id,
>>> you use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in
>>> the forms transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And
>>> the annoying part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is
>>> deprecated.
>>> I think this is really confusing.
>>>
>>> So, anyone against using the same object model in these components?
>>> This means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer
>>> and at the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Another question is, why care about the FormsTransformer at all, does
>> it give us something that we can't get from JXTG + Sylvain's macros?
>
>
> It's faster, that's one.
The jx:import instruction imports the macros during run time instead of
script compile time, thats probably the reason for it being slow. AFAIU
there is nothing to do about that as far as we want jx:import to be back
compatible. I plan to add a jx:include (or whatever it should be called)
to the refactored JXTG, that does much more during compile time. With
that it should be fast enough.
> It does not support lots of complex stuff jx allows, so your templates
> will have to be free of any logic, that's two.
That is harder to do anything about as we want to keep everything back
compatible. Maybe we should have a JXTG 2.0 that is completely declarative.
> I'd prefer FormsT over jx anytime in the current state of things.
Ok
/Daniel
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
>> transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
>> Today I found out, that even these two components use different
>> identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id,
>> you use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in the
>> forms transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And the
>> annoying part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is
>> deprecated.
>> I think this is really confusing.
>>
>> So, anyone against using the same object model in these components?
>> This means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer
>> and at the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
>
>
> +1
>
> Another question is, why care about the FormsTransformer at all, does it
> give us something that we can't get from JXTG + Sylvain's macros?
It's faster, that's one. It does not support lots of complex stuff jx allows, so
your templates will have to be free of any logic, that's two. I'd prefer FormsT
over jx anytime in the current state of things.
Vadim
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
> transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
> Today I found out, that even these two components use different
> identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id,
> you use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in the
> forms transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And the
> annoying part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is
> deprecated.
> I think this is really confusing.
>
> So, anyone against using the same object model in these components?
> This means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer
> and at the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
+1
Another question is, why care about the FormsTransformer at all, does it
give us something that we can't get from JXTG + Sylvain's macros?
/Daniel
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 06:38:36PM +0000, Tim Larson wrote:
<snip/>
> > So, anyone against using the same object model in these components? This
> > means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer and at
> > the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
>
> No problem. It would be much better to have them match.
> Just follow the normal deprecation cycle for such a change.
..and document the change, of course :)
--Tim Larson
Re: Using the same object model in forms and jxtg
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:30:59PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Currently we have two sitemap components, the jxtg and the forms
> transformer, that are able to evaluate dynamic expressions.
> Today I found out, that even these two components use different
> identifiers: for example if you want to access the continuation id, you
> use "cocoon/continuation/id" in jxtg. But this doesn't work in the forms
> transformer. There you have to use "continuation/id". And the annoying
> part is that this last expression works in jxtg but is deprecated.
> I think this is really confusing.
>
> So, anyone against using the same object model in these components? This
> means introducing the "cocoon" object in the forms transformer and at
> the same time deprecating the access without the cocoon object.
No problem. It would be much better to have them match.
Just follow the normal deprecation cycle for such a change.
--Tim Larson