| I was just about to sit down and suggest the same thing. :-)
As for a validating parser regarding the tag inside a tag problem, I think we'd have to think about what's going on there. I used to do this to get resource urls into tags, then got out of it because I realized what a mess it created. Perhaps this is something that we need to kick around. Specifically, if it makes us all feel kind of silly, then is there a way that we won't feel silly? (PHP et al use the <%= %> construct all over)
Personally, I would love to be able to write code like this because it would allow easy css integration and a quick preview of the layout. The number of tags could be cut in half: (i.e. <div woid="myName"></div> instead of <div><webobject name="myName"></webobject></div>) and that means less opportunities for error.
I'm starting to feel a little warm and fuzzy.
John On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:18 PM, RedBugz Software wrote:
On 8/14/06, Chuck Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:25 AM, Alan Ward wrote:
>
> Mixing wod definitions in with html is simply rude :-) It makes
> refactoring even more of a pain than it already
> is (with KVC) as now you have another set of files in which
> references may be found.
I am not so fond of it myself. I have a number of pieces of code
that dynamically generate the WOD portion for use with canned HTML
(or vice versa). Changing these to having them all in one would be a
painful task. Luckily, the architecture of WOComponents is such that
we don't all need to use the same parser. Even different pages in
the same app can use different parsers.
If we are going to adapt an existing HTML editing tool for use with
WO we probably don't have any choice but to follow the herd, discard
the concept of WOD and merge both concepts into a single HTML file.
Chuck
I believe the Spindle Eclipse plugin for Tapestry allows for these separated files. I may be naive, but are there that many technical hurdles to allowing <span woid="componentName"> in addition or as a replacement to <webobject name="componentName">? Both Tapestry and JSF use this convention and both have Eclipse support, including WYSIWIG support either done or coming soon for both.
Granted, this would break WebObjects Builder, but pretty much any change is going to do that at this point, right?
Logan
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
|
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to archive@mail-archive.com
