Tim Larson wrote:
--- Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
Also, it seems to me that "class", "struct" and "new" are variations around the concept of widget groups. We could then have:
naah, they just happen to be able to contain some other stuff (much like aggregator and even repeater)
- "group-template" for "class" - "group-instance" for "new" - "group" for "struct"
How does it sound?
don't like it, the fact that these can contain nested widgets is no justification for the added group-prefix?
we should go for names that describe what they are doing
struct --> group makes sense
(and leave me some time yet to see the difference/line up between aggregate and struct)
however for the other two I'm more into class --> define, declare, new --> use, reference,
but as you say, the nouns might make more sense
class --> definition new --> instance
other takers?
Sounds like a correct analysis. The group-* names may cause some misunderstanding however, because of the different semantics of "struct" versus "new". "struct" exists to wrap a set of widgets in a namespace, while "new" does not providing a wrapping namespace. The original idea was to allow several uses of "new" to include several classes into a "union", with each class providing multiple additional choices (cases) for the union. Should we change "new" to have it provide a wrapping namespace? Then we would have to support union cases with names like "some-namespace.some-widgetname". How would this interact with your union proposal below?
I like the proposed names if we can solve this cleanly, and deal with the first two being so long...
Note also that we can make a direct parallel between "wd:group" (former "struct") and the instance-only "wi:group" wigets I introduced in woody-page-styling.xsl.
I am interested. Would you explain what you are thinking in more detail?
more interest from my side
onto a related topic: after my recent attempts to revive the woody-generator (and attempting to see a better fit with the recent jx:macro stuff) I was thinking about introducing a wt:group to dynamically run through all the nested widgets (just like the generator is doing: see the setup for my recent binding-samples: it has some potential if the template can be abolished and the form builds up dynamically)
<snip />
regards, -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
