On Sab, 4 de Diciembre de 2004, 10:22, Daniel Fagerstrom dijo: > Antonio Gallardo wrote: >> Hi: >> >> I remember some threads related to the (ab)use of too many syntaxes in >> Cocoon. Is posible to point to some imposible constructions in the >> current JXTG? Perhaps my narrow mind don't allow me to see them. What I >> see is a lot of similar languages with diferent syntax sugar: velocity, >> jelly, TAL, etc. Please don't get me wrong. I want to help too. I need >> to >> see some use cases first. :-D > > No constructions that anyone has required are imposible in JXTG syntax > AFAIK. It is rather that some people want to be able to edit the > template in Dreamweaver and similar tools.
I never used Dreamwaver (not sure if this is a shame to me). What I use is jEdit - http://www.jedit.org/ . It is only a 2.5MB java installer + some cool plugins. If what we need is a syntax checker + highlighting for JTXG, we can write it for jEdit: http://www.jedit.org/42docs/api/org/gjt/sp/jedit/syntax/package-summary.html It is easier that refactor a language just to fit in a tool. BTW, I never heard about a similar case before. ;-) > And if one put the directives > in attributes instead of elements with special namespaces that works > much better. The attribute based languages might be less verbose and > easier to read also. Why? To me this a matter of taste. > I think, as I hinted about in my RT about Attribute Driven Templates, > that we basically can allow both attribute driven and tag driven > templates from the same implementation. If people blame us because they can use #{$...} or ${...} I don't know what to expect by adding new istructions syntax. The result seems to be: "more troubles than help." > So we could resue the JXTG tags as attribute directives and > avoid the need for maintaining double implementations. See the last comment. While I understand a potentiall "gain" from the developers POV. I see a nightmare for users. ;-) Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
