Fabian Jakobs schrieb: > > Hi, > > I don't like the idea of having an additional 'package' attribute. > This is what XML-namespaces are meant for. JSF for example uses a XML > namespace for all standard Widgets. 3rd party widgets are prefixed > with different XML namespaces. My suggestion would be to create one > flat namespace for qooxdoo and encourage 3rd party developers to use > their own namespaces. This way naming conflics can be avoided. > > Best Fabian > I also think this would be a better idea. The namespace definintion could be used to provide information for plugins to QxBuilder when third-party widgets should be used. If we manage to have a working XSLT model, then writing those plugins should be rather easy.
The <qx:object classname="foo.bar.baz" /> tag could be used as a fallback where you don't want to use a separate namespace. C. > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von > Siarhei Barysiuk > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. August 2006 17:15 > An: qooxdoo Development > Betreff: Re: [qooxdoo-devel] QxBuilder xml description - Propositions > for a new syntax > > I agree with Christian. We should add optional attribute 'package' (name > is unimportant). If tag has this attribute output js will be > var qx1 = new name.of.full.package.Button(); > > if it hasn't > var qx1 =new Button(). > > Simple and fine determination. > > > Christian Boulanger wrote: > > Hi Ricardo, > > > > Ricardo Borillo schrieb: > > > >> And how do you solve widget name collisions? > >> > >> > > I understand your concern, but my point is that there shouldn't be any. > > I think the difference to dojo is that the qooxdoo toolset strives to > > provide a uniform set of ui widgets and not a colorful collection of > > widgets. If I need a button, I call it a button, and there only needs > > one button to be in the widget toolkit. If I need a button with special > > additional behaviour, I give it a different name. So no conflict > occurs. > > There is only one button in HTML and in XUL and noone has a problem > with > > that. > > > > But if this is a concern for you, I wouldn't have a problem by > > introducing an "optional" namespace tag, just as you proposed. I just > > don't want to make it obligatory. one could also think of a syntax. > > > > <qx:object classname="namespace.ui.Button"/> to allow a full > integration > > of arbitrary objects into the syntax. > > > > Or, use a different xml namespace as Siarhei proposed > > > > <namespace:button /> > > > > my whole concern is to make it an EASY and FAST syntax, which stays > > stable even when there is further development which changes the API, > > because I want to be able to work on my application instead of changing > > my application code to mirror the latest changes. The qxml layer should > > do this for me. > > > > Best, > > > > Christian > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
