Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
<snip/>
Depending on how it's done, it can be a good thing. IMHO,
public XMLizable getLabel();
seems like a right approach to me; and templating language should be more than happy to work with XMLizable objects, so to render a label you don't need anything more than:
#{widget/label}
Interesting idea, but which questions the actual need for a form template language, as <ft:widget id="foo"/> could be equally written ${form.foo}.
IMO we shouldn't go that far. A problem of flowscript is that its programmatic power forbids writing graphical tools to visually layout the page flow. By removing the form template language, we would similarily forbid the use of visual tools (e.g. dreamweaver or htmlarea extensions) to define a form template.
IMO these are different concerns. The fact that you could write ${form.foo}, instead of <ft:widget id="foo"/> doesn't mean that we have to take away <ft:widget id="foo"/> or any tools support.
I think the advantages of using XMLizable are so big that we should go that way.
+1.
Along with writing the Tree widget, I'm writing a proposal to refactor the CForms API, which unfortunately will bring some backwards incompatibility but will make it way more template-friendly.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
