Tony Collen dijo: > Steven Noels wrote: > >> On 29 Jul 2004, at 20:40, Tony Collen wrote: > >>> Scripting languages (and programming languages in general) are easy to >>> create, all you need to do is define the grammar and tokens, and feed >>> it all to something like JFlex/BYacc to create a parser. Perhaps it's >>> easier said than done. Granted, I've done nothing with parser >>> generators, but in the end I think it's the same. >> >> >> Agree, but I'm not convinced that we are just aiming for a simpler >> syntax. I feel we're moving away from declarative, and I'm convinced >> that this might reduce the predictability of Cocoon's behaviour and >> usage model. > > For that matter, you can describe lots of things with a grammar that > isn't necessarily a programming language, so perhaps I mis-spoke. I > simply thought that being able to define the sitemap with a grammar > would allow us to create a parser that would parse the tree of the > sitemap.
But with XML we already have the parser done (xerces). We don't need to create a new one. The tokens comes automatically. I think this is part of the XML idea or not? Going back to any grammar java-style I saw it as a step back. And for the action that add complexity to the overall sitemaps there is the flowengine to save it. I am not against testing and implement a new sitemap syntax, but I think we need ideas why is good the change. As Stefano said, pehaps later we can saw the real value of that. I am +1 for a test drive of the new grammar and help in that where I can give a hand. I believe in Groovy and I think is good to implement it in Groovy. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
