Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Hi all,
We started to use the new widget libraries today, and encountered a
number of semantic issues, mainly related to difficulties to clearly map
names to concepts.
To use libraries, we currently have at hand:
- <fd:import> to make a library available for reuse in the current form
(or library) definition.
- <fd:expand> to import a widget defined in a library in the current
definition
- <fd:class> to define a group of widgets with no surrounding container
- <fd:new> to expand the contents of a <fd:class> in the current container
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])
- rename <fd:new> to <fd:expand>: "expanding" is the word used
traditionally to denote insertion of the macro contents at the current
location.
- rename <fd:import> to <fd:load-library>, to clearly indicate that
widgets in the library are made available but not inserted right now, in
contrast with <jx:import> in JXTG that executes the imported template.
+1 to all three proposals
- 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.
do we really need it then? I could live with <fd:field extends="lib:myfield"/>
only :-)
Also, I think we should allow <fd:load-library> only as first-level
children of <fd:form> and <fd:library>, [...]
+1
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
