On Dec 7, 2004, at 4:18 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Refactoring JXTG ================
I think everything starts here. Once this gets refactored the opportunities for further development should become apparent. There is nothing terribly wrong with JXTG, except that it is a monolithic class with monolithic methods.
For 1), the back compabillity preserving refactoring of JXTG. I cannot see any need for voting about this. Either it gains community support in terms of that people joins in design, implementation and testing, or it don't. And in that case we just remove it. Then if the new refactored implementation should replace the current one and get "oficial status", thats certainly something to vote about. Also if we develop some new interfaces e.g. for ELs or formaters that we feel that should be made part of core, it will also be something that should be handled by proposals and votes.
I can assure you that I have no urge to implement everything myself at all (as some of you might have noticed I enjoy design descussions and proposals more than implementing stuff ;) ),
You mean some people actually LIKE to implement stuff? ;-)
I will continue to strive for community involvment. And I will write a proposal about how to continue the refactoring as soon as I find time.
Next Generation JXTG ====================
This is about how we should continue our development of the template language beyond JXTG 1.0. It is purely at the RT stage, no concrete design proposals yet. Later there might be proposals in form of documents or proof of concept implementations. But that is a later question.
And an interesting discussion. I think once people look at the refactored JXTG and have an itch to scratch you will see a few attempts at expression language development.
Attribute Driven Templating ===========================
This is ongoing discussions. My hope is that we can design the template engine in such a way that the synatx handling part is plugable so that attribute and tag driven templates (JXTG) can coexist, (although not in the same document ;) ).
I'm guessing that after refactoring JXTG you will see that this is easily doable. I'm only guessing because I have only taken a brief look at JXTG's code, but one of the goals of refactoring is to organize the code properly.
But that is a technical quiestion IMO. Anyway, we need to discuss the consequences of dirrerent syntaxes a little bit more before implementing anything.
You mean defining the language. No one wants to implement. ;-)
Glen Ezkovich HardBop Consulting glen at hard-bop.com http://www.hard-bop.com
A Proverb for Paranoids:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow
