- From: Jason <jeacott@hardlight.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:38:52 +1030
- To: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- CC: www-forms@w3.org
> (Digression: This reminds me of things like Java ant files: people
> always tend to write things like:
>
> <property name="war.lib" value="${war.inf}/lib"/>
>
> Somebody could argue that sure, that's a valuable indirection, just in
> case someday you want to change where the WAR lib directory is, or
> where the WEB-INF directory is. The truth is that you are never going
> to move it, and that the indirection is fairly pointless: you will be
> as clear writing WEB-INF/lib instead of ${war.inf}/lib.
yep I do this with all my ant scripts, it makes them more readable, and
easier to override and change paths and params, Its just not true that
these things never change with ant either - you refactor your code and
you need to change all kinds of things in your ant script.
If I have bothered to create binds for my xform use, then what seems
truly pointless is using those binds in half of my statements but being
forced to revert to xpath for the rest when I have a perfectly good bind
defined. using both just feels wrong, and if they arent to be supported
properly throughout the view then I will agree with you - whats the
point of the binds?
> This not to say that binds are useless, but that they may, in some
> circumstances, be just pointless indirections. End of philosophical
> digression.)
I prefer to think of them as abstractions rather than indirections, a
stable interface that can also reduce the avg line lengths and improve
readability throughout the view part of the form.
>
> -Erik
>
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 22:14:12 UTC