Daniel Fagerstrom pisze:
Which IMO is a little bit less ugly than the "\{", "\}" escaping
mechanism. And furthermore you should have most of your CSS in own files
that you include, shouldn't you.
I agree it looks better.
I lend this code from our samples. There are even long JS snippets in JX
templates 8-)
Looking at the parsing code I get the impression that "}}" -> "}" isn't
implemented correctly.
Apart from who is going to fix it, could you file an issue?
Next choice could be to use ${}. The problem with this characters is
that they are already used in Template and if we don't pick Jexl
language as default it will break current templates not to mention
confusion it would cause. We could come up with %{}, !{} or whatever
is not used yet. Everyone's keyboard has lot of remaining symbols
waiting for use but I wonder if we really want/need new wrappers.
I woulf be OK, with chosing Jexl as default EL and using "${}", but I
prefer "{}".
Daniel, what about back incompatibility, then?
Simply choosing {} is not a solution because there will be no smooth migration
path for two reasons:
a) some JX may break as proved above
b) it's all or nothing situation, if someone (or we) decides to switch to new expressions their
existing applications simply break
Such radical step has its own benefits but I'm not sure if it's exactly what
you would agree with.
--
Grzegorz Kossakowski
http://reflectingonthevicissitudes.wordpress.com/
*** My Internet Service Provider breaks my internet connection
***
*** incessantly so I'll not be able to respond to e-mails
***
*** regularly and my work will be somehow irregular.
***
*** I'm already trying to switch ISP but it will take handful amount of time.
***
