Am Montag, 16. April 2007 15:49 schrieb Grégory Joseph: > > 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?
I don't think admincentral handles this. At least not the version I have installed on my developers machine. The second entry is updated so there isn't a name clash. > > >> * 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. I meant that in a freemarker template foo['bar'] is equal to foo.bar. The . or the [] notation are meant to mean the same thing. At the model level they both call get() on your hash. > > >> * 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. I use the handle of content nodes regularly. ---------------------------------------------------------------- for list details see http://www.magnolia.info/en/developer.html ----------------------------------------------------------------
