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! [x] It's not jx-macros.xml fault. CForms should be changed if current solution isn't right.
It might be a naive view, but IMO from a view POV a form model should be a rather simple data structure and the kind of thing that a good template language should excel in rendering.
If the rendering macros become ugly it is IMO a sign that we have work left to do. Either the form model need to be made more view friendly, or we need to find more powerfull general purpose instructions to the template language (or both). Or the problem is more complicated than I think ;)
Anyway, I think we should try to understand the issue a little bit better before we try to just hack around it.
/Daniel
