On 2/26/06, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > My idea so far has been that we map directly from the path to a page name. </snip>
One big problem with Spindle + T4 is that the page name has this special status as the focal point. Before T4 the spec object was the focal point. This was great as the was usually built from a xml file which is a static entity and static entities are what tools have to work with. And files are the easiest thing of all to "find". Allowing for some exceptions (<page>/<component-type> tags) it was a reasonable to infer the name of the page/component from the name of the spec file. Again with some exceptions the class and template "finding" was unabiguous - a spec had one class and one template. In T4 the focus moves to the name a developer uses to reference the page/component. And that focus is completely ambiguous as to what class/template applies. It depends on the context in which the developer uses the name. Tools either have to build a massive map of all possible combinations of name/class/xml/template (most of which are never going to be used) or impose artificial rules to make the task manageable. I found out quickly that IDE users are not interested in more "rules" on the use of the tool. Simply pasting even more rules on top of this inside Tapestry does not go to the root of the problem and only has a minor benefit in tools w/respect to reduced complexity. Turn the focus away from the spec object to another static entity. We've already left xml behind as a possible focus so that leaves only the template and the class. I think everyone would agree that the template is not the right choice which leaves the class. If the class is the 'king' then the spec object becomes a subordinate player as it should be. The fqn of the class becomes the name of the page/component and it just becomes an excercise in allowing developers to use 'simpler names' that map to the fqn. All the pieces are there now to do this. I fail to see why "the class is the page/component" (a poor statement of this concept of focus) is unreasonable. Geoff -- The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net Get help with Spindle: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/spindle-user Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman Feature Updates: http://spindle.sf.net/updates --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
