Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
The functionality seem useful, but I don't think that it should be
implemented as an attribute. An attribute template language would be
cool, but, for JXTG, I think that all instructions should be elements.
Mixing element and attribute instructions makes the template language
confusing IMO.
we already have <root jx:cache-key=""/>
Thing is jx:strip-whitespace is not really an instruction. It's more
like a processing directive. With <jx:strip-whitespace/> being a tag the
syntax is awful:
<xyz jx:strip-whitespace="true">
${abc.name}
<nested-tag jx:strip-whitespace="false"> ${abc.description}
</nested-tag>
</xyz>
vs.
<xyz>
<jx:strip-whitespace>
${abc.name}
<nested-tag><jx:preserve-whitespace> ${abc.description}
</jx:preserve-whitespace></nested-tag>
</jx:strip-whitespace>
</xyz>
Recursive space stripping is also very useful when do you not generate
html output but use jxtg to generate views for a self made client (not
web browser).
From architectural stand point I would prefer letting the strip
whitespace element just work on its immediate children. Striping
whitespace recursively means that we need to make the Template
architecture more complicated and less reusable, I'm not convinced that
it would be worthwhile.
The architectural issues are to be discussed further but I do not think
that this functionality will impact jxtg core much.
There are lots of comments from users (mainly using jx-macros for
cforms) that whitespace is problematic. So I think it's worthwhile.
--
Leszek Gawron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IT Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
