Davanum,
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay in replying to your e-mail. I really like the mapping
> between OO space and XML space. For obvious reasons we cannot get rid of
> XSP....But we can adopt your approach to some extent.
Thanks for your feedback. Of course it is not my intent to replace XSP.
However, I think that an alternative solution for the linking between the two
spaces is a valuable addition to C2. Due to the fact that the SAXLet approach
works with generation as well as transformation, XSP and SAXLets can work
together smoothly.
Furthermore, SAXLets could help to homogenize the current C2 code-base by
removing duplicate code. For instance, the LDAP- as well as the SQLTransformer
go to great lengths to filter and parse the event stream. They could both be
implemented more naturally as SAXLets while providing exactly the same
functionality.
> Have you thought about XSPlets to implement LogicSheets? This is more like
> the Tag Library approach in JSP
SAXLets and JSP taglibs already share quite a few features. Regarding the list
of features on the page you mentioned:
- SAXLets can be customized via attributes (whole XML fragments, actually)
passed from the calling page
- SAXLets have access to the processing environment (request, response etc.)
- SAXLets can communicate with each other. All methods of one SAXLet share the
same instance, so they can "communicate" anyway. But also a SAXLet may
register itself with the objectModel so that others can access its
information.
- of course tey can modify the generated response
- they can encapsulate simple and complex behaviour, whatever this means :-)
What they (currently) can't do:
- they can't be nested within one another because the SAXLet processor doesn't
know anything about the semantics of a SAXLet element. Thus contained SAXLet
elements would simply be passed to the containing SAXLet element's method.
The ad-hoc nature of the mapping between OO and XML space used by the SAXLet
approach can be seen as an advantage, as it renders a JSP TLD style descriptor
unnecessary. However, it also makes it difficult to validate the tags and to
provide semantics other than a simple replacement of the mapped element.
Therefore I am currently pondering this option.
Joerg Henne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
