Am 12.08.2006 um 23:03 schrieb Chuck Hill:
An import point to consider here is that we are not limited to this
traditional implementation. The only restriction that the WO
frameworks place is that there is an implementation for
public WOElement template()
I have seen (I think it was another of David Terans "do it like
this" examples that allowed there to me no .wod file, with the HTML
containing (for example)
<WebObject name="Foo" WOComponent="WOHyperlink" class="bigLink"
string=linkTitle/>
I have that code here somewhere. Allegedly, the problem is that extra
parsing step that makes startup times larger, in fact this was the
reason why these absurd .wo packages were created in the first place.
Another problem is the ambiguity between strings and dynamic parts.
OpenGroupWare had some marginally better-thought out templating:
<wo:WOHyperlink const:href="http://...";
dynamic:onclick="someMethodOnComponent"..>
Which at least can handle XML. Leaving the problem with where you put
the .api and the .woo files. And what to do with the bazillion of
existing components out there. And localization...s
This is not to but the idea down, far from it. In fact, I'll gladly
convert all of Wonder to it once it gets more fleshed out. But it
needs some serious benefit over the existing solution (a working
DreamWeaver plugin?).
Cheers, Anjo
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
