Definitely agree with that statement: JSP files with entire blocks of Java code
are usually an unreadable mess.
All of the use-cases I could name are simple lists of actions that happen on
elements somewhere within the current control. Some of the actions are more
complex, such as GWTQuery-style transitions that require asynchronous
callbacks, while others are synchronous CSS style or attribute changes. All of
them are triggered by DOM events of some sort: click, mouseover, mouseout,
focus, blur. The idea is to allow the large subset of basic functionality to be
added at design time without involving developers in any way.
I imagine a set of bindings for some basic events, plus a way to add bindings
for other transitions specified elsewhere. I'm not proposing a syntax here,
just an illustration of the level of control I'd imagine a designer to have:
<span ui:mouseover="gq:slideDown(answer, 10); ui:addClass({style.blink}); "
ui:mouseout="gq:slideUp(answer, 10);">Peek at the answer</span>
<div id="answer">
42
</div>
Matt.
On 2010-01-05, at 2:13 PM, Joel Webber wrote:
> I've generally been somewhat opposed to the idea of "little languages"
> creeping into UiBinder code, because it's much harder to provide tools to
> help with the code. But I can also see the utility of something like this. If
> we're to address this problem, we should do some thinking about how best to
> provide a sensible set of restrictions (i.e. not all of Java) that encourage
> people to do more complex things in normal Java code. We should also be
> thinking about how best to make this work with whatever "binding" framework
> we decide to use.
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ray Cromwell <cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great idea, I was thinking of having something like
> <ui:query></ui:query> and use $("id") to wire up stuff, but this is
> even better since you avoid the lazy() or anonymous inner class. The
> alternative is to have a custom parser like
>
> <gq:query>
> $(".actionLearnMore a").click(lazy().as(Effects).slideToggle().end());
> </gq:query>
>
> This could be simplified further for callback actions:
> <gq:click query=".actionLearnMore a">
> as(Effects().slideToggle();
> </gq:action>
>
> -Ray
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Matt Mastracci <matt...@mastracci.com> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I've been playing around with UiBinder, hoping to start replacing a lot of
> > our custom templating code with it. One feature that would really improve
> > the experience for our designer/developer interface would be inline actions.
> >
> > A lot of our boilerplate UI event code does one of the of the following:
> >
> > - hides/shows/toggles another element (ie: expando links)
> > - adds/removes/toggers a CSS classname
> > - starts an animation
> > - changes a rollover image
> >
> > It would be really useful if there was a way to plug in actions inline,
> > something like the following pseudo-gwtquery code:
> >
> > <span class="actionLearnMore">
> > <a title="Learn more about dots"
> > ui:click='${"infoBox"}.as(Effects).slideToggle()'>Learn more</a>
> >
> > <div id="infoBox">
> > More info...
> > </div>
> > </span>
> >
> > I don't know what the ideal syntax would look like, but even something
> > trivial would be able to replace 99% of the UI event code we have to write.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Matt.
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
> >
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
