Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > During the "JXTG 2.0 (just say no!)" (you find links to it in > http://wiki.apache.org/cocoon/Templates), many people where negative to > the idea of developing JXTG in a "taglib" direction. We decided that > JXTG should focus on templating and that more programatic stuff should > better be done in flowscripts. >
It's strange, because I think that sylvain, with his cforms jx macros shows how usefull could be a taglib for templating purpose. Perhaps do i need to make my own helper class, to hide the connexion between jxtg and om, but i would prefer to do it directly inside jx macros specially if the "connexion" has no programatic stuff in it: a simple method call to a component to retrieve a string or dom for example (ie quite similar to a jx:set with a jxtemplate expression). Perhaps input modules inside jx could also solve our problem without changing the actual jxtg (fuzz) focus (<- just joking jxtg is a great thing :-) > So I don't think you would get much support for some more general move > in making it easier to do "programming" in JXTG. But we can of course > discuss more specific use cases and see if they view concerns that > should affect template development or if they are control concerns and > in that case how they could be done in flow. > But as far as i understand your work, if you had made a uniformization between flow and jx behaviors, does this mean that the $cocoon objet will behave similary than the one in flow (ie had a getComponent method :-) ? > /Daniel Regards. Will test your JXTG 2.0 with real pleasure.
