Hi there,
On 29/10/2007, at 10:28 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Personally I find creating a simple groovy expression in your wod
binding cleaner looking than WOOgnl.
e.g.,
SomeDiv : WOGenericContainer {
<....>
omitTags = hasFoo && hasBar;
}
I wasn't very clear -- I'm with you on this (though honestly this
is actually identical to OGNL except that WOOGNL requires the
leading "~".
... and the surrounding quotes, no? And, thus escaping quotes within
the expression.
5.4 lets you plugin custom association parsers -- you can literally
write groovy methods as bindings. It's academically interesting,
but sort of crazy. There's a pretty wild example of what the
parser can do floating around that I'm not sure if it made it into
the developer examples or not ... I'll have to check.
Okay, interesting. My Leopard copy has finally arrived, so I'll be
able to check this out soon enough.
Other than that, I think Wonder's is a more developer-friendly
parser. I am, however, totally biased on this topic :) I think
groovy components over in-place groovy bindings is probably the
better approach to solve the dynamic binding problem.
If it's a developer updating the page, sure. It's simple things
like being able to prefix a numeric id for css purposes where
groovy bindings are very helpful for a web designer.
Yep, which is why I'm pro OGNL as well (and helper functions,
though that's less of a designer thing, but similar sort of
goals). WOLips actually validates limited OGNL expressions -- so
if you do "~person.firstName + ' ' + person.lastName", WOLips will
actually validate those keypaths for you.
Our web designer doesn't use WOLips at all, so validation is a moot
point, though helpful when I svn up :-)
So how do you determine when to eval as groovy and when it's not?
Or is it just always eval'd as groovy for your apps?
The choice is quite easy:
if (KEY_PATH_PTN.matcher(expression).matches()
||CONSTANT_PTN.matcher(expression).matches())
// normal eval
else
// eval as groovy expresion
Or... just eval it all as a groovy expression. I've not done any
performance tests to see which is better.
But this way, the binding is always clean. Here's an example of what
I mean by clean:
Taken from [1] we see something that should be simply expressed
looking like:
String3: WOString {
value = "~\"Hello Max \" + name";
}
To me that's ugly. And it gets worse the more complex the expression.
However, as a Groovy expression it remains simple and readable (and
thus easier to validate :)
Title: WOString {
value = "Hello Max" + name;
}
Now, which do you prefer? (Leaving aside inline stuff)
[1] http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/Project+WONDER-
Frameworks-WOOgnl
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
