You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 6, 2020. It is now read-only.
As I understand it, we generate XML in the pattern library by reading some YAML, passing it through a SWIG template that generates some XML. Could we not just use XML directly rather than YAML? I'm not sure I understand what using YAML and SWIG buys us, and it makes it harder to see what XML is actually being used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The YAML is used quite extensively throughout the patternlib for metadata, etc., and we use an XML template rather than XML directly so that we can abstract that away from the data (which is used in a variety of ways, not just for the XSL templates) and also as we pass lots of different data in to test different cases for each pattern (which is where the pages come in).
I agree that it could be easier to see what's being used and to that end would like to build a view in each pattern that previews each resource that went into making it.
Is it necessary for the YAML to have a different shape from the XML being generated? If the shape of both were similar enough that you could automatically generate one from the other without having to define an XML/SWIG template for each pattern, I think that would help.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
As I understand it, we generate XML in the pattern library by reading some YAML, passing it through a SWIG template that generates some XML. Could we not just use XML directly rather than YAML? I'm not sure I understand what using YAML and SWIG buys us, and it makes it harder to see what XML is actually being used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: