jon * wrote:
>
> on 4/17/00 5:55 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > jon * wrote:
> >> Turbine doesn't have these problems and also has a lot of "helper" code to
> >> make this stuff easy. The end goal for Turbine is to be that bridge that
> >> makes it easy for designers and developers to work together. The beauty of
> >> Turbine is that each time someone comes up with a new page template
> >> language, Turbine can be easily adopted to work with it. Right now, Turbine
> >> works with Cocoon, Freemarker, Webmacro and has initial support for JSP, but
> >> it hasn't been finished for obvious reasons. Essentially, the "View" portion
> >> of Turbine is pluggable. How cool is that?
> >
> > Not very to me.
> >
> > Such general pluggability hurts because imposes "least common
> > denominator" hooks. When Turbine uses Cocoon as a renderer is going to
> > waste most of its capabilities. Cocoon is not only a rendering library
> > (even if, of course, it includes one)
>
> The point Stefano is that Turbine is a web application framework. I don't
> care about making books or slide shows for the web.
Are you kidding?
> I care about doing web
> applications because truthfully, that is the cool thing about the web TO ME.
What is a web application, then?
> Someone doesn't have to learn how to write a client side application and
> it's GUI, they can simply make an unlimited amount of applications that live
> in a web browser. Sure it is LCD when it comes to interface (ie: we only
> have a small set of widgets to use), but those things will improve.
>
> Using Cocoon to make all my pages look the same and my Back and Next buttons
> for me isn't cool to me. These are problems that have been solved before in
> many different ways. I want to use Cocoon to make my pages look the same,
> make my back/next buttons work AND check out my e-commerce shopping
> cart....:-)
Oh, I see... yes, the only thing you ever saw about Cocoon is the
presentation that Pier and I gave at apacheCON, right?
Maybe you should go get http://www.eurofootball.com... then tell me: is
this a slideshow? is this a book?
> I'm also frustrated that Cocoon 2 isn't ready yet. I need that yesterday.
Everybody does :)
> Cocoon 1 most definitely does not hold up in a web application framework
> setting (both you and Pier have admitted that). Pushing Cocoon for this type
> of role just doesn't make sense right now because it is the wrong tool for
> this job _today_. So, for now, I will continue to drudge on with the best
> that I have...Webmacro...
Makes sense.
> > Instead, integrating the two would mean that you can "markup" a turbine
> > module using an XML namespace so that non-programmers can manipulate
> > them more easily (sort of taglib, sort of what tapestry is doing),
> > without polluting the general programming-centric view of web
> > applications.
>
> No it doesn't.
???
> Turbine is simply in the M portion of the MVC. It brokers the
> request and wraps security and other things around it and then calls the V
> to actually display things..
That's exactly what I was trying to say.
> > It depends, as everything. In my humble experience, designers have
> > _much_ less troubles in understanding markup that orthogonal syntax.
> > Moreover, markup it's much more "GUI-friendly".
>
> I'm sorry Stefano, but this is when I pull my 5 years of experience growing
> a 130 person web design shop thing over your head. A lot of designers can
> barely do HTML and good javascript experience is a luxury...
Ok, sorry, I'm probably stupid, but you are saying that javascript
experience is a luxury... but WebMacro experience is not? You are saying
that people that are used to tags and work with them all day long, find
easier a syntax that doesn't have anything to do with tags?
Are you kidding?
> > "yuck" is not a really friendly and neutral metodology of critical
> > analisys.
>
> :-)
>
> > Coldfusion is bad because you have a predefined (huge!) set of elements,
> > no notion of namespaces and no notion of programmatic markup
> > tranformations. JSP taglibs will have the exact same problems.
> >
> > Now, open your mind and tell me the difference between:
> >
> > <p>Select from the following: $customSelect</p>
> >
> > <p>Select from the following: <customSelect/></p>
>
> Now, add onto that...
>
> $customSelect.setMultiple(true)
>
> <customSelect multiple=true/>
>
> Personally, I'm betting that the designers will understand the first better
> than the second.
And I don't :)
> Maybe we should have an examples competition and let the designers tell us
> what they like best. That would be a much better solution than all of this
> guessing and letting the W3C and Justin decide things for us.
This is no competition.
> > it's pretty much identical. Except the XML parser will skip the first
> > one and ignore it. WebMacro is _intentionally_ orthogonal. But doing
> > that, you loose _everything_ you have in the XML world: structure
> > validation, namespacing, trasformations. WebMacro was created by someone
> > that came from the SGML world and you can clearly tell.
>
> Designers don't care about validation or namespacing or transformations.
They don't now, because they have no ideas of what they are for (like
most of the people, anyway).
> They care if their selectBox shows up on the screen or not.
Of course. Validation would tell you if it runs on the screen without
even trying it :)
> > I agree with you that WebMacro makes perfect sense in an HTML
> > environment where you don't have much help from the language model
> > anyway. But using WebMacro for XML? to me, it makes absolutely no sense.
>
> Using WM for XML? Huh? I don't know where you are going there...
I was thinking about integration with Turbine and Cocoon... and webmacro
for XML doesn't work that great...
> >> Using Turbine + Webmacro gets you the same thing that you are talking about
> >> above and you don't have to write some non standard XML markup...on top of
> >> it if you DO want to write XML markup into your pages, you have the option
> >> to integrate Turbine with Cocoon which implements W3C standards.
> >
> > I wish it was that easy... :)
>
> I think it is. I sat down with Federico and Pier on Saturday and explained
> Turbine to him in a high level...he gets it and understands how the two can
> play together. Lots of other people understand this as well...including
> myself.
Well, please take the time to enlighten me, then. :)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
