Leon Messerschmidt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote :
> [geir wrote : ]
>> Sure. To be precise, the #macro()'s are nothing more than template code,
so
>> I don't quite see why they are worse than using #include.
> What I'm wary of here is that people would start using #include to import
> #macros. #macro directives would then begin to be treated as black-box
> implementations. If a bug is detected you will need to debug both the
> #included stuff and your java code. I'm yet to think of a difficult to
fix
> #macro bug :-) Maybe I'm just paranoid here...
A few things :
1) You can shut that down with current proposed implementation. There is a
property to turn of 'inline', which includes both explicit #macro()
defintions in the template, as well as #macros in #included templates.
Maybe it's misnamed, in that it should be clarified in the property name
that it really controls any attempts at a #macro() definition after the
engine loads the central library #macro() VMs, if any.
2) Theoretically, I think that you can hang yourself on #include as well, as
you can also chain more templates together with #includes w/in the included
template, in theory.
I think that the central library idea allows the 'black box' implementation,
if I understand you correctly. I personally don't think that is a bad thing
as long as administration process is sound, and again, it can be turned off.
Paranoia is good.
geir
