Re: [Webmacro-devel] Here's why I don't like the Map constructor stuff

[Keats <ke...@ea...>]

I like having it be a Map.  For example, #eval needs a Map for the "using"
clause.  Can't we just implement a map that overrides put to allways return
an empty String?

Keats
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric B. Ridge" <eb...@tc...>
To: <ma...@an...>
Cc: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Webmacro-devel] Here's why I don't like the Map constructor
stuff


> On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 01:47  PM, Marc Palmer wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I thought I'd try using the #set $xxx = { } mechanism today.
> >
> > If you remember there was a real hoo-haa about this versus my
> > #newobject directive (which is fine and working well in Ignition I
> > might add!).
> >
> > Now I tried this:
> >
> > #set $x = {}
> > #foreach $item in $myNameList
> >   $x.put( $item, $values.get($item) )
> > #end
> >
> > ...and guess what? I get all the values in the output because put()
> > returns an Object!
>
> So we make {} return a special object too.  It doesn't necessarily need
> to be a java.util.Map implementation.
>
> eric
>
> >
> > This is really bad news. #newobject does not suffer this because I
> > return a custom object not a Hashtable/Map that is de-Java-lized:
> >
> > public class WebMacroObject
> > {
> >    public int getCount()
> >    public Iterator getPropertyNames()
> >    public Iterator getPropertyValues()
> >    public void put( String key, Object value )
> >    public Object get( String key )
> >    public void reset()
> >    public void copyFrom( WebMacroObject src )
> >    public void copyFrom( Map src )
> > }
> >
> > This is much cleaner and does not suffer from the Map contract
> > problems. This object can of course be used without #newobject, it is
> > completely standalone. Java heads may shriek at the altered syntax,
> > but I think it stands well in the non-Java world.
> >
> > Shall I commit this object to CVS and edit the { } map constructor
> > mechanism to create an instance of this instead of the Map
> > implementation it does now?
> >
> > ...or is there another solution?
> >
> > I feel that, like my suggestion for a list wrapper object, we should
> > consider providing some special WM types for this kind of stuff to
> > de-Java- lize things further and start building a small "WebMacro
> > Object Model" in this regard, so we can document it clearly for
> > template writers instead of referring them to API Javadocs for Map,
> > for example.
> >
> > Just say the word and WebMacroObject is in CVS and { } updated to use
> > it... and if you really feel friendly you could let me add #newobject
> > to WM to back up the "WebMacro Object Model" :)
> >
> > Marc
> > --
> > Marc Palmer
> > Contract Java Consultant/Developer
> >
> >                        w a n g j a m m e r s
> >
> >                 java and web software design
> >              experts with an ethical outlook
> >
> >                   http://www.wangjammers.org
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/
> > direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
> > _______________________________________________
> > Webmacro-devel mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
>
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> Webmacro-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webmacro-devel