Leszek Gawron wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Leszek Gawron wrote:
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
forms block of course - just like current jx-macros.file.
Can your code handle that?
Then +1 from me.
Upayavira
