On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:24, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > > <wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath"> > > <wb:unique-row> > > <wb:unique-field id="myId1" path="myId1"/> > > <wb:unique-field id="myId2" path="myId2"/> > > </wb:unique-row> > > <wb:on-bind> > > <wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1"/> > > <wb:value id="myId2" path="myId2"/> > > <wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/> > > <wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/> > > </wb:on-bind> > > </wb:repeater> > > It was a good idea to replace the both attributes with a more > sophisticated XML structure, but it is a bad realization in my opinion. > > <rant> > The above is redundant, irritating (unique-field is not really correctly > named, is it?) and (because of the more java code we need) bloated. On > the one hand the redundancy above is obvious, on the other hand > sentences like "This unique-field element ... The id and path attributes > have the same meaning as in <wb:value>. ... The wd:convertor ... For > more info see the description of this element in <wb:value>." will get > me suspicious. Why the §$%& we need an additional XML element if we have > already one that seems to be perfect for it: wb:value as the frequent > references above show? Why do we have to specify @id and @path twice for > those identifying elements? And so on. Such changes should be well > thought out, otherwise we have to change to much later on when > sophisticating our XML elements. And the latter we do this the more we > will break. Unfortunately not many Woody developers are really active on > the list at the moment. > </rant>
I don't have the time and energy currently to follow all these developments, but thanks for keeping a critical eye on it. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
