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. [ ] 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.
And have the code for these extensions in the forms block (ie. forms depends upon templates)? +1
Have them in the templates block? Don't like it. Because it creates an unnecessary dependency.
Can your code handle that?
Regards, Upayavira
