Eclipse Community Forums - RDF feed
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/
Eclipse Community Forumswhy did the JET Syntax change (JET1 vs. JET2)
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/19983/64222/#msg_64222
I am curious why the JET syntax changed from JET1 to JET2.
I always liked the simplicity of the JET1 syntax and see no obvious reason
to move to
an XML-like syntax, moving away from a well known JSP-like template
language.
Bye
Victor
PS:
could you please reply to
v.volle _ at _ computer.org
as well]]>Victor Volle2006-12-10T15:23:47-00:00Re: why did the JET Syntax change (JET1 vs. JET2)
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/19983/596758/#msg_596758
The JET2 syntax changes were made to support tag library support.
That said, I am working on integrating 100% compatibility with the JET1
syntax, and most importantly, compatibility with the generated Java classes.
Paul
"Victor Volle" <v.volle@computer.org> wrote in message
news:elh8nd$6ga$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> I am curious why the JET syntax changed from JET1 to JET2.
> I always liked the simplicity of the JET1 syntax and see no obvious reason
> to move to
> an XML-like syntax, moving away from a well known JSP-like template
> language.
>
> Bye
> Victor
>
> PS:
> could you please reply to
> v.volle _ at _ computer.org
> as well
>
>]]>Paul Elder2006-12-11T13:12:28-00:00Re: why did the JET Syntax change (JET1 vs. JET2)
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/19983/64245/#msg_64245
The JET2 syntax changes were made to support tag library support.
That said, I am working on integrating 100% compatibility with the JET1
syntax, and most importantly, compatibility with the generated Java classes.
Paul
"Victor Volle" <v.volle@computer.org> wrote in message
news:elh8nd$6ga$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> I am curious why the JET syntax changed from JET1 to JET2.
> I always liked the simplicity of the JET1 syntax and see no obvious reason
> to move to
> an XML-like syntax, moving away from a well known JSP-like template
> language.
>
> Bye
> Victor
>
> PS:
> could you please reply to
> v.volle _ at _ computer.org
> as well
>
>]]>Paul Elder2006-12-11T13:12:28-00:00