[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELOCITY-704?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12678340#action_12678340
]
Nathan Bubna commented on VELOCITY-704:
---------------------------------------
Another vote to keep #break around, eh? :) How about this:
#break -> stop innermost scope
#break($<scope>) -> stop specified scope
#stop -> stop outermost scope w/no message
#stop("info string") -> stop outermost scope w/message
I can't say i consider this to be as simple or straightforward. But since we
do already have both directives in 1.x and #break seems to have some fans, i
can live with this. I'll just rationalize that all of the users who would
bother with these features won't be confused by having two such similar
directives. After all, we already have the #define and #macro cousins, and
i've yet to figure out a clean way to consolidate those two either.
> VTL Simplicity - "Control" objects
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: VELOCITY-704
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VELOCITY-704
> Project: Velocity
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Engine
> Reporter: Nathan Bubna
> Assignee: Nathan Bubna
> Fix For: 2.0
>
>
> In the discussion for VELOCITY-680, Claude suggested the addition of what i'm
> calling "control" objects as a solution. These would have the same name as
> the block directive or macro to which they belong. At a minimum, these
> would provide get(key), set(key, value) and stop() methods to control the
> reference scoping and execution of the block to which they belong.
> Directives could extend the basic control object to provide additional
> functions, such as index() and hasNext() for #foreach. Here's some examples:
> #foreach( $user in $users )
> $user#if( $foreach.hasNext ), #end
> #if( $foreach.count > 10 ) $foreach.stop() #end
> #end
> #macro( foo $bar )
> blah blah #if( $bar == 'bar' ) $foo.stop() #end
> #set( $foo.woogie = 'woogie' )
> $foo.woogie
> #end
> #foreach( $item in $list )
> #set( $outer = $foreach )
> #foreach( $attr in $item.attributes )
> #if ( $attr == $null ) $outer.stop()#end
> #end
> #end
> ------foo.vm---------
> blah blah $template.stop() blah
> ------------------------
> #define( $foo )
> blah blah $define.stop() blah
> #end
> This could allow us to greatly simplify all sorts of things. We could remove
> the #break, #stop and #return directives. We would no longer need to have
> "local" contexts for foreach loops or macros; instead users could set and get
> local variables directly in the provided namespace. All else would be
> global. This may even cut down our internal code complexity a fair bit.
> It'll certainly obviate the need for several configuration properties and
> internal contexts. Everything becomes much more explicit, obvious and
> robust. I also don't think it looks ugly. :)
> We would, of course, have to make sure that the StopExceptions thrown by
> stop() aren't wrapped into MethodInvocationExceptions. We'd have to make the
> directives clean up their control when done rendering, and if they're nested
> in a directive of the same type, then they should save and restore the
> reference to the parent control. We'd also have to figure out a good
> default name to give the control objects for the top-level control object,
> and whether it would be different than the name of the control object used
> during a #parse call. $template? $parse? $velocity? If we wanted to use
> $template--which i think works well for both top-level and #parse--then we'd
> probably have to make it configurable, since that's likely to conflict. And
> if we make that configurable, i suppose we may as well make it configurable
> for the others too.
> I'm struggling to think of any real downside to this. Most of the replaced
> features (implicit macro localscope, #stop, #break, $velocityHasNext) are
> either not default behavior or are new features. I'd wager that most people
> would only have to change $velocityCount to $foreach.count. Even that's no
> big deal, since this would be for a major version change. , The worst i can
> think of is the fact that for a couple of these controls it would mean a few
> more keystrokes. Considering all the gains in extensibility, explicitness
> and simplification (for us and users), i think it's worth a few keystrokes.
> What do you guys think?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
