Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

2005-05-24 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Two more proposals then: - Jelly: scripts in XML (scripts are a form of configuration... I like the naming) - Jelly: mouldable XML In the latter I think I should be able to get a few pictures out of moudling jell-o with my kids... this may be modern transluscent... I suggest we do not consider

[betwixt] Using options while mapping a Java type

2005-05-24 Thread Christian Aust
Hi, I'd like to customize the way betwixt maps Java types at runtime. See this: Class file (shortened for readability): == class MyBean { public Object getStandardProperty() {} public Object getOtherProperty() {} }

RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

2005-05-24 Thread Dan Madoni
Well, you've inspired me to write something. :) I hope to spend some time cobbling something together for Wiki by this weekend. It may not be much if anything, but considering how much I've benefited from Jelly, I feel like I ought to do something. -Original Message- From: Hans Gilde