Leszek Gawron wrote:
I have refactored JXTG recently so now instructions like jx:for, jx:if are defined in separate file: src/block/template/java/org/apache/cocoon/template/template-instructions.xml
Right now we are rendering forms in jxtg using a macro file which is kind of ugly IMO - see yourself: src/blocks/forms/java/org/apache/cocoon/forms/generation/jx-macros.xml
I could fairly easily reimplement jx-macros.xml into more elegant java solution by implementing a separate set of instructions like ft:widget, ft:repeater and so on. If you let me of course.
I do not want to start a tag library war. If cforms and jxtg are core features they should closely support each other.
This is NOT the case of allowing arbitrary instruction sets to be created. CForms case only.
Plase cast your votes: [ ] Yes go for it.
2 in favour: me and Upayavira
[ ] It's a bad idea - leave jx-macros.xml untouched! [ ] It's not jx-macros.xml fault. CForms should be changed if current solution isn't right.
2 in favour: Daniel and Vadim
So what now?
Sylvain said that he is workking on a proposal about refactoring the CForms API in the end of the "CForms view model?" thread and also proposed to have we could have more reflection friendly repeaters. Vadim proposed to use XMLizable in the API instead of direct seting of content handlers. With these changes the jx-macros probably will be quite straight forward.
I would propose that you wait and see.
/Daniel
