On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 08:18, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On 3/14/02 2:53 AM, "Christian Trutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> That's fine - that's the simple case though. If I have
>
> $person.foo
>
> Velocity is required to try
>
> $person.get("foo")
> $person.getFoo()
> $person.getfoo()
> $person.isFoo()
Yes, velocity is required to but in reality the majority of the time
only one of those four options is actually employed. That's still my
argument and that if it was stated somewhere that this is how the
templates were made then after the method required to render that
$person.foo reference is discovered it could be used to generate
bytecode. You would have to check for problems during development but as
deployment rolled around you would be assured the compiler would work.
All I'm saying is that the free willy and the immutable type approach
would work.
> Of course, you can express that easily in bytecode (lets face it, our code
> compiles... :)
>
> This feature is very valuable in separating the view expressed in the
> template from the datamodel expressed as objects in the context...
I don't think it really has anything to do with separation per se. If
part of your model includes mutable types then there is probably
something wrong with your model which is what I've always contended. I
don't expect to garner any favour with this view all I'm saying is that
the expectation of immutable types in the context to produce bytecode is
possible and I think it would be faster. But as mentioned in a previous
message I'll let it rested until I actually have something working.
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System and Software Consulting
> The bytecodes are language independent. - Sam Ruby
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tambora.zenplex.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
