----- Original Message ----- From: "James Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
> The one thing that may prevent FreeMarker from being "drop-in" > replacement for the WebWork JSP is the expression language supported by > the WebWork taglibs. If the WebWork tag expects these expressions to be passed to it as plain string attributes, then it's no problem. I know JSP 2.0 will have container-evaluated expressions, but for now we support the JSP 1.2 spec so we're just calling property setters for tag attributes. > It also affects JSTL integration and Velocity > integration. It concerns the hierarchical nature of the ValueStack. > Most of these third-party view technologies don't understand the > concept of '../name'. Depends on where. FM's own <include> and <import> directives do understand .. when resolving the template name to include. But maybe I'm talking nonsense - I'll take a closer look at the expression language and WW stacks to see if something rings an alert in my head. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. > We use WebWork/Velocity on a huge project and > have never had any need for this syntax, but some WebWork developers (I > guess) use the hierarchical ValueStack quite often. > > Since you "own" the FreeMarker syntax and can modify it, perhaps you > may want to include such constructs. I'll take a closer look at it. Cheers, Attila. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
