I think freemarker doesn't in general make a distinction between
foo.baz and
foo['baz']. Either should return the same value. ie the property
or child
named 'baz'. In our case either a wrapped NodeData or a wrapped
Content.
Then how to deal with nodes which have a child called "bar" AND a
property with the same name? One of them will have priority, but the
other one should still be available to the template, how to deal with
this?
<#list foo as n> ... : would loop over the properties of foo
probably best to stick with the freemarker built in for extended
hashes:
<#list foo?keys as key>
http://freemarker.sourceforge.net/docs/ref_builtins_hash.html
<#list foo.children as n> ... : would loop over the child nodes of
foo
probably best here to stick with the freemarker built in for nodes:
<#list foo?children as n>
http://freemarker.sourceforge.net/docs/ref_builtins_node.html
Totally agreed, I had overlooked the TemplateNodeModel interface,
thanks for pointing it out.
* since properties could be used more often than subnodes in
templates, it might be interesting to revert the [] notation: foo.bar
would mean "bar property of foo" while foo['bar'] would mean "bar
child of foo", eventhough that doesn't seem very intuitive from my
programmer's point of view.
foo['bar'] should be the same as foo.bar.
Same question as above.
* the iterators i propose here are inconsistent with the properties/
child notation, and would prevent access to a sub node called
"children".
not really since the syntax is different. foo?children is not the
same as
foo.children.
Agreed, now that you've pointed this out above.
* how to expose other Content properties, such as handle and uuid?
Chris suggests using [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] OTOH, I'm not
convinced these should be used very often in templates,
is 'should' here prescriptive or descriptive?
Err, as to not get lost in english grammar (which as it shows I do
not master), I meant: I'm under the impression that most templates
will not need - or not very often - to output the handle or uuid of
the nodes they're rendering.
so maybe
having a few custom directives would be good enough (<@uuid>${foo}</
@uuid>)
Here's yet another idea regarding how to handle 'handle': have $
{foo} by
itself be the handle? This would correspond to the content wrapper
implmenting TemplateScalarModel (getAsString)
Sounds fair enough for handle, but doesn't help much in exposing
other properties (uuid, depth, ...)
g
----------------------------------------------------------------
for list details see
http://www.magnolia.info/en/developer.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
