Check out:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSXServer/Reference/WO54_Reference/com/webobjects/appserver/parser/package-summary.html
In particular the WOAssociationFactory part. This would allow you to
write:
<td class="[ognl: row % 2 == 0 ? 'even' : 'odd']"> ... </td>
etc. You can create your own association schemes. Ones we are using
are:
ognl: expression
translate: 'key', key=value, ...
format: 'pattern', key=value, ...
These can be used _anywhere_ an association can be used, which is
everywhere.
dk
On Oct 28, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
Personally I find creating a simple groovy expression in your wod
binding cleaner looking than WOOgnl.
e.g.,
SomeDiv : WOGenericContainer {
<....>
omitTags = hasFoo && hasBar;
}
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.
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/david_koski%40mac.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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]
