• 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: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings


  • Subject: Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
  • From: Archibald Singleton <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:19:06 -0300


On 27 Mar 2008, at 19:01, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 27.03.2008, at 15:47, Mike Schrag wrote:

My bullet points on the subject :)


* [xxx] guarantees you an extra character to type on every binding -- completion can never fill it in for you because it never knows when you're done

Just because we're entertaining this idea:

How about inserting the closing "]" as soon as one types the opening "[" in the context of a binding value? On a related note, I wish eclipse would behave more like TextMate which always does the Right Things e.g. surrounding the selection with the opening char and corresponding closing char when one type a opening char type with some text selected.


* even Apple doesn't use [xxx] syntax for cocoa bindings OR ObjC 2.0 properties (which were designed to look like bindings), though admittedly they don't use $ either, but they EXPLICITLY did not use [xxx] markup

Sure looks nicer too. Still I'm one of the weirdos who likes the [obj msg] syntax because to me it makes it clear that I'm sending messages (as opposed to, say, "calling" a method).


* $xxx is the standard inline markup of just about every template language, which, for one, also makes it consistent with the velocity templates that we use other places inside of WOLips

Which makes also most templating languages consistently ugly :-)...

And you can set the WebObjects 5.4 inline bindings to use the $ style too. So this is currently the one working on both systems.


Yep, I noticed that, that's why I thought that maybe woognl offered the same functionality. I guess that would past the compatibility path ugly as it is :-)

= tmk =
_______________________________________________
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: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
      • From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
    • Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
      • From: Lachlan Deck <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings (From: Archibald Singleton <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings (From: Archibald Singleton <email@hidden>)
 >Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings (From: Guido Neitzer <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
  • Next by Date: Re: [Wonder-disc] [ANN] New Screencast
  • Previous by thread: Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
  • Next by thread: Re: [Wonder-disc] Is there an equivalent for the ?key="value" syntax but for ognl inline bindings
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread