hepabolu wrote:
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.
Ah, you mean "ft:class" which would be replaced with "ft:macro" and thus
could be confused with "jx:macro"? Hmm... Not sure this is that much a
problem.
- 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).
They're not exacly equivalent. <fd:field extends="lib:myfield"/> is an
extension with no overloading or extension and thus must use the exact
same widget type as the extended widget.
Since it doesn't allow overloading, <ft:insert> doesn't care about the
library widget's type, and avoiding having to know the target widget's
type can be convenient when you just want to use it.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
