I haven't looked at the new and improved CForms yet, but I'm all for
clarification.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
These names make it very difficult to understand what does what. I'd
like therefore to propose a renaming:
- rename <fd:class> to <fd:macro> (this is the wording used on the wiki
[1][2])
What about the jxmacros? Doesn't that lead to confusion? I know
namespace is different, but that is easily lost when scanning quickly
through the file.
- rename <fd:new> to <fd:expand>: "expanding" is the word used
traditionally to denote insertion of the macro contents at the current
location.
"expand" does fit better with "macro", but I'm having doubts about
"macro" and to me "new" fits better with "class"
- rename <fd:import> to <fd:load-library>, to clearly indicate that
widgets in the library are made available but not inserted right now, in
+1
contrast with <jx:import> in JXTG that executes the imported template.
- rename <fd:expand> to <fd:insert> (or <fd:use>?)
For this last item, it has to be noted that it is equivalent to an
"untyped extension", i.e.
<fd:insert ref="lib:myfield"/>
is equivalent to
<fd:field extends="lib:myfield"/>
if of course "myfield" is a field.
Well, if both are equal, I'm all for the last (i.e. field extends
library field).
Also, I think we should allow <fd:load-library> only as first-level
children of <fd:form> and <fd:library>, as it doesn't really make sense
+1
Bye, Helma
