> Anyway on this fix: while I think that Mike's wo:whatever is cool,
> I'd be extremely careful with it for the time being. Firstly, for
> simple things with single or two value bindings they might make
> things easier, but more than that will make things utterly unreadable.
Well, when I first added them, it came with the tagline "with great
power comes great responsibility" ... I really only like them, for
the most part, on conditionals, strings, and other tags that don't
really have more than 3 bindings. That and it's useful if you load
dynamic templates out of the db and just want a single string value
for the template.
> But secondly, these are totally arbitrary constructs of one
> creative (if a bit over-active and sleep deprived) mind. No way you
> will be able to share code with people unless all of you agree on sth.
Well, no more so than all the rest of Project Wonder. I can't share
code that relies on PW's fixes for NSMutableArray unless the other
person also has Wonder's fixed NSMutableArray. Or for that matter
WOOGNL core ... If you use OGNL in your bindings, other people have
to have WOOGNL to use it.
Now if you're referring specifically to using custom tag shortcuts,
then I agree more, because it's really easy to accidentally not
register a shortcut in an app and it just quietly fails. But then,
I'm also not sharing code all that often except when I'm writing for
PW itself, in which case I use the common syntax.
What I WOULD say is that the more of these low level features you
adopt, the more you tie yourself to Project Wonder and the further
you deviate from Apple's released plan. If Apple decides to update
the core frameworks and replace template parsing with something
fancier, you are potentially left with whatever features we choose to
add to template parsing vs what Apple adds because we have replaced
the template parser. But this is also sort of true of Project Wonder
in lots of places, too.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 14 2007 - 17:29:52 EDT