• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Time out!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Time out!


  • Subject: Re: Time out!
  • From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:05:16 -0400

If it's going to be an Eclipse-based tool, my preferred route would be to propose an addition to the browser API that supports DOM access, at which point we can do all kinds of fancy things without requiring our files to be in any particular format.

ms

On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Chuck Hill 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

On Aug 12, 2006, at 3:17 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:


Am 12.08.2006 um 23:03 schrieb Chuck Hill:

An import point to consider here is that we are not limited to this traditional implementation. The only restriction that the WO frameworks place is that there is an implementation for

public WOElement template()

I have seen (I think it was another of David Terans "do it like this" examples that allowed there to me no .wod file, with the HTML containing (for example)

<WebObject name="Foo" WOComponent="WOHyperlink" class="bigLink" string=linkTitle/>


I have that code here somewhere. Allegedly, the problem is that extra parsing step that makes startup times larger, in fact this was the reason why these absurd .wo packages were created in the first place. Another problem is the ambiguity between strings and dynamic parts.




--

Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/ practical_webobjects





_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40mdimension.com


This email sent to email@hidden

_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Time out!
      • From: "RedBugz Software" <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Time out! (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Michael Halliday <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Arturo PĂ©rez <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Deepak Nulu <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Anjo Krank <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Alan Ward <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Time out! (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Marketing WO
  • Next by Date: Re: secureWrapper, appendToResponse blueprint / sample code needed...
  • Previous by thread: Re: Time out!
  • Next by thread: Re: Time out!
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread