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.
2 in favour: me and Upayavira
[ ] 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.
2 in favour: Daniel and Vadim
Well, I'd prefer the second, after having heard the suggestion. However, from Reinhard's tests, if it is the evaluation of expressions that causes the lack of speed, changing CForms to make it jxpath friendly wouldn't help here. So maybe the first option is all that is possible?
Thoughts anyone?
Regards, Upayavira
