I have been thinking too about how in some cases (as in the Arc
challenge), it looks like creating the html in the controller using
function calls or objects (like ehtml) and skipping the view could
make the code shorter. My current impression -- and I could be wrong
-- is that Arc style programming works better when most of the content
is dynamic and that ErlyWeb style works better when you have large
amounts of static html in which small amounts of dynamic data is
embedded.
Btw, you can bypass views today by returning {response, [...]}, so
nothing is preventing you from doing Arc style programming in ErlyWeb.
You just have to write some library functions for generating html
entities and maybe add support for continuations in ErlyWeb (this
isn't too hard).
Yariv
On Feb 8, 2008 9:23 PM, jm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been looking at some of the other web frame works out there and my
> own code looking for ideas to improve matters in erlyweb. One thing that
> I've noticed is that I'm repeating things in the view that I've written
> in the controller but only in a slightly different way. I've noticed
> that many of the web developement frame works that don't use MVC use a
> model and a canvas analogy to save on this repetition.
>
> An example of what I'm thinking: create a page with a link and a form
> with one text field and a submit button.
>
> -module(simple_controller).
>
> new(_A) ->
> %% include a call back function with the link
> Link = html_link:new("hello", fun() ->
> "hello there!"
> end),
> TextField = html_input:text_field(),
> Submit = html_input:submit(),
>
> %% include a call back function with the form
> Form = html_form:new(fun(Fields) ->
> simple:process_new(Fields)
> end),
> Form1 = html_form:add(Form, TextField),
> Form2 = html_form:add(Form1, Submit),
>
> Base = html_div:new(),
> Base1 = html_div:add(Base, Link),
> Base2 = html_div:add(Base, Form),
> Base2.
>
>
> render(Layout) ->
> html:render(Layout).
>
>
> Rough internal representation,
>
> {div, ..., [
> {link, LinkId, "hello", CallBackFun},
> {form, FormId, CallBack, [
> {input, text_field, FieldId, Value},
> {input, submit, SubmitId, undefined}
> ]
> }
> ]
> }
>
>
> Output
> <div>
> <a href="http://server/simple/_12345_>hello</a>
> <form action="http://server/simple/_12346_";>
> <input type="text"/>
> <input type="submit"/>
> </form>
> </div>
>
> Now there's bound to be errors in the above, but I the basic idea should
> be clear. The html is generated much like a GUI, say, wxwidgets or Qt.
> call back functions are added to direct process flow, Ids are
> automatically generated to direct processing to the correct callback.
> Rest style URLs are still processed as is, ie http://server/simple/new
> will call the above new/1 function.
>
> There's still abit unclear about this. For example, what's the best way
> to alter/add attributes to the html without it becoming to verbose.
>
> This started as scribles in a note book as I waited for a meeting to
> begin a couple of days ago and is being posted "as is" after I saw
> yariv's posts about arc this morning.
>
> Jeff.
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlyweb" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlyweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
