To feed the offtopic-gods: Anyone ever tried to use a tapestry page with a special fop-template, which then is fed into FOP? I guess it would be a nice thing if I were able to capture the page's output and pipe it into FOP or something. Don't know how, but that would be cool.
Anyone ever tried that? Would be cool because I have to add a dynamic PDF output in my project and reuising XSLT/FOP feels a bit backwards after working with T5 :) 2012/3/21 Lance Java <lance.j...@googlemail.com>: >> I've just quickly checked the FreeMarker documention about XML > processing. My impression is that if you have a simpler XML structure and > output, FreeMarker is a better choice. On the other hand, I'm not sure it > has support for XPath selectors in the FreeMarker declarative XML > processing, which is usually the best approach for more complex XML > structures. > > I see reference to using XPath in Freemarker's declaritive approach at the > bottom of this page > http://freemarker.sourceforge.net/docs/xgui_declarative_details.htmlalthough > I can't find any examples > > "But in this case don't forge that in XPath expressions (we didn't used any > in the example) the default XML namespace must be accessed with an explicit > D: since names without prefix always refer to nodes with no XML namespace > in XPath. Also note that with the same logic as with imperative XML > processing, the name of handlers for elements that has no XML namespace is > N:elementName if (and only if) there is a default XML namespace. However, > for nodes that are not of type element (such as text nodes), you never use > the N prefix in the handler name, because those nodes are free of the idea > of XML namespaces. So for example, the handler for text nodes is always > just @text." > > On Tuesday, 20 March 2012, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:28:39 -0300, Lance Java <lance.j...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >>>> Actually, XSLT makes sense when the source document is XML already. >>> >>> I disagree, both freemarker and XSLT need to parse the XML input into > some form of DOM object before applying a transformation to it. Do you agree >>> that XSLT templates are far more verbose than Freemarker templates? >> >> No. :) I've just quickly checked the FreeMarker documention about XML > processing. My impression is that if you have a simpler XML structure and > output, FreeMarker is a better choice. On the other hand, I'm not sure it > has support for XPath selectors in the FreeMarker declarative XML > processing, which is usually the best approach for more complex XML > structures. >> >>>> Sorry, Lance, my flame war detector failed to detect it in this thread. >>> >>> Sorry for the inconvenience. :P >>> >>> I'm not trying to start a flame war here. >> >> I haven't seen any here too, but I just wanted to continue the joke. :) >> >>> It just seems that people blindly >>> often choose XSLT for XML transformations without considering freemarker. >> >> Agreed. The more options known, the better the choice. >> >>> In this thread, trsvax mentions using JAXB to convert java objects to XML >>> so that they can be passed to XSLT which parses them into DOM objects. > Why not just pass the java objects to freemarker and avoid XML all together? >> >> I thought the Java to XML part was strange too, unless the declarative > way is better for the described scenario. Maybe that's the case, as the > technology used to generate PDF is FO, which is XML-based, but then I'm > talking about something I barely know . . . >> >> -- >> Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo >> Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer, > and instructor >> Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. >> http://www.arsmachina.com.br >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
