Re: Is there an example that uses the new WO component format?

From: Tobias Crawley (tcrawle..mail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2007 - 06:43:36 EDT

  • Next message: Valerio Luccio: "Help - Leopard killed my project"

    Brendan:

    Several months ago a former co-worker wrote some perl scripts to
    convert WOD's to WOOGNL inline bindings. He no longer does WebObjects
    development, and no longer hosts the scripts, but I have made them
    available at:

    http://handbuiltsoftware.com/downloads/convertToWOOgnl.zip

    I'm cross posting this to the webobjects list as well, since with a
    little modification, this script could convert WOD's to 5.4 inline
    bindings.

    I've used the script on several projects, though not in a few months.
    I recall it had an issue with <webobject> tags that were nested more
    than two or three levels, but in those cases it would still produce a
    valid WO, leaving the deep nested tags unconverted from the WOD.

     From his original announcement:

    > As soon as I started using Eclipse, I pretty much stopped using
    > WebObjects Builder and started using the built-in component editor of
    > Eclipse. The more I used the built-in component editor, the more I
    > got sick of keeping my bindings in a separate file, and so I started
    > using WOOgnl to put all my bindings in-line. To me it's much more
    > readable, and there are scads of cool little features about it that
    > can save you a ton of time. The problem was that I had tons of
    > existing code that used the old style of bindings, and after
    > converting two or three to WOOgnl format, I was fed up pretty
    > quickly. So I bit the bullet and wrote a PERL script to do it for
    > me. It took awhile to account for all the outside cases of different
    > acceptable syntax, but I've now used the script on hundreds of
    > components, and it seems to work quite well. If anyone is
    > interested, I've posted the scripts for public consumption.
    >
    > Of course, there is no warranty implied whatsoever, so please use
    > with caution! The first script (convertToWOOgnl) simply takes the
    > path to a .wo file and spits out a WOOgnl-ized HTML file to standard
    > out. You can then copy this output over the HTML portion of your .wo
    > and delete the contents of the .wod portion. The second script
    > (convertProjectToWOOgnl), for the truly brave, invokes the first. It
    > takes a directory path as an argument, updates the .html of every .wo
    > in the directory, and whacks the .wod file. It does nothing to back
    > up the directory before-hand, so PLEASE be prudent if you use this
    > and make a copy of the directory first, and test your components
    > after. The scripts work smashingly for me, but you never know when
    > there's an outside case that you missed coding for, so I just want to
    > be sure everybody is clear about the implications of using the second
    > script. The first is extremely safe, since it only works on one file
    > at a time, doesn't modify any files, and simply writes its output to
    > the terminal.

    - Tobias

    On Nov 1, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Brendan Duddridge wrote:

    > I prefer not to mix and match. I like the inline binding style
    > better. Even with longer bindings. I just put each binding on its
    > own line in the HTML. I know that gets messed up when you reformat
    > though. It would be really cool to have a quick "convert wod to
    > inline" refactor command.
    >
    >
    >
    > ____________________________________________________________________
    > Brendan Duddridge | CTO | 403-277-5591 x24 | brenda..lickspace.com
    >
    > ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
    > Suite L100, 239 - 10th Ave. SE
    > Calgary, AB T2G 0V9
    >
    > http://www.clickspace.com
    >
    > On Oct 31, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
    >
    >> On 31.10.2007, at 13:58, Mike Schrag wrote:
    >>
    >>>> No, you don't have to delete the wod, it seems to be good enough
    >>>> to have it empty.
    >>> Are you defecting on me over to 5.4's parser :) ?
    >>
    >> Nope. I very much prefer the WOOgnl parser for the ability to mix
    >> styles. We only worked on that stuff yesterday as we have projects
    >> that are not using Wonder.
    >>
    >> cug
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://www.event-s.net
    >>
    >>
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 01 2007 - 07:10:59 EDT