On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Brian Kotek wrote: > I would say that this would probably cause more confusion than good. While > you might like having separate XML files, I have to say I doubt most people > would. So I would say the existing behavior should stay as it is. For people > with small to medium-sized apps, I believe they prefer to have a single file > to deal with. Since it is trivial for people to go in and move desired > chunks of XML into separate files if they want to, this really isn't an > issue that I can see.
>From limited testing (2 people), they *all* (heh) like the separate files for scaffolded objects. Even for small apps. It especially helps developers new to the framework. Really, I swear. They like it better more organized. Not one of the 2 people said they liked it better all in one file. :] > Also, from an implementation perspective, having the core attempt to figure > out which child XML file some generated code goes into would be exceedingly > difficult. People can name the XML includes anything they want. There's no > way the core could know where to insert something even if using child files > was actually attempted. Actually, since we're linked to the object name, and not some arbitrary file, it's pretty much the exact same as it is now, but with separate files, like so: -Scaffolds.xml -- include personObject.scaffold.xml --- personObject.scaffold.xml -- include addressObject.scaffold.xml --- addressObject.scaffold.xml See, nothing confusing, and I'm not talking about this as a pie in the sky type of deal-- I've done it, and it works fine. As far as MG is concerned, all it's doing is pulling in Scaffolds.xml, same as always. Since both Scaffolds.xml and the included sub-files are re-generated when you re-scaffold, there's nothing to keep track of, so to speak. > I do agree that formatting the generated XML would be nice though. There is > a UDF at CFLib.org called XMLHumanReadable() that does a pretty good job of > formatting XML. I've used it with good results when generating ColdSpring or > Transfer XML files. Excellent! I've enjoyed jTidy, because it does other stuff too, but tossing in a CFC would be best, I reckon. @cfChuckstar : The built in (with J2EE version) Eclipse XML tools do swell at formatting the code too... but why not save the environment, and reduce electron/mouse abuse? :-) Is what I'm talking about getting any clearer? It's not really all that and a bag of chips, but it has helped -- especially for me, a 24hr coder, who doesn't especially like culling through a big ass file to get what I want at 4AM. [: -- Francis Webb is easily our greatest poet and one of the greatest poets in the world but he's hardly ever mentioned. Robert Adamson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "model-glue" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/model-glue?hl=en For more about Model-Glue, check http://www.model-glue.com . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
