On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 11:09, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: > > >Sylvain Wallez dijo: > > > > > >>Hi Woody'ers > >> > >> > > > >Wondering about in his Australian meaning! lol. > > > > > > Oops... Hope I haven't said something dirty ;-)
dirtyness is in the eye of the beholder. > > >>Lately, I encountered several use cases where I found that the current > >><wt:repeater-widget> we have today is not enough. > >> <snip/> > >>So I was thinking to add new esql-like statements (analoguous to > esql:results, esql:no-results, etc) in the woody template. > >> > >> > >>What do you think? > >> sounds good > >>But I'm also wondering, as woody usage increases, if we will not > need to write form templates involving more and more conditional > parts. And for this, JXTemplate shines. Contrasting this: > But mixing jx-like access to the form model with wt: templates > elements is likely to quickly become unnatural. A solution could be to > augment the JXTemplate syntax with new Woody-related instructions. > Taglibs for JXTemplate? with this: > <snip/> I agree with this, and was more or > less thinking to having the woody taglib to define the exact same tags > than the transformer does, _plus_ some additional tags. it wouldn't change much for the user, except for not having to put the woody transformer in the pipeline? I see several positive points though: * it would make it more obvious for the user that they can be combined * making a generator out of it has the advantage that the template can be precompiled into an object model, which might make it easier to implement certain things then in SAX-streaming mode. About the only disadvantage I can think of is that it forces the usage of JXTemplate. What if we suddenly realize Garbage is much better? (haven't look at it yet). -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
