Re: api support

From: Dov Rosenberg (dov.rosenber..onviveon.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 10:21:30 EDT

  • Next message: Chuck Hill: "Re: Command line build"

    That is so cool - can't wait to try it out. Thanks

    Dov Rosenberg

    On 9/12/05 7:57 AM, "Mike Schrag" <mschra..dimension.com> wrote:

    > I thought I had posted already, but I can't find the post -- too much
    > programming over the weekend I think :)
    >
    > Several people have emailed me asking for this -- support for WOD
    > binding-name completion based on the API file is in (for project,
    > framework, and core components) ... Completely standing on Ulrich's
    > shoulders with his API parser :) . There are also a bunch of new
    > error checks in the WOD file: check for element names defined in HTML
    > but no in WOD, check for element names defined in WOD but not in
    > HTML, check for duplicate definition of element names in WOD, check
    > for duplicate definition of binding names, check for existence of
    > type names + that it is instanceof WOElement, and the usual check for
    > proper syntax.
    >
    > I don't do API binding validation yet. I can't recall if I asked
    > this before, but if you have an API file that defines bindings, can
    > you ONLY bind to something defined in the API file or is it the usual
    > get/set methods PLUS the bindings defined in the API file?
    >
    > And I'm still working the kinks out of the error checking --
    > occasionally I manage to get it to freak out a little (I think there
    > a certain case where the parser gets greedy and one of the rules
    > gobbles up an extra character at the end, which throws everything
    > off), but I haven't nailed down the actual repeatable scenario that
    > causes it. If you happen to see it and can figure out what causes a
    > repeatable case, let me know.
    >
    > WOD error checking still is not hooked up to a builder, so you only
    > see errors for files that you have opened. Incidentally, would
    > people LIKE it to be a builder? The downside is obviously that the
    > time to do a build increases. Going forward, any new file you make
    > will have the incremental error checking, so this is really only an
    > issue for finding errors in existing projects.
    >
    > ms



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 10:21:31 EDT