Yes, I agree, but what I saw in this list is that some people ( not me, or
not I? , my english has to improve), thinks that scriplets are something
good to avoid, back to the Model 1 Vs. Model 2 x scriplets vs. tags
discusion.-
On the idea that a team has people that knows Java and makes the
beans/servlets ( Model + Controler) , and people that knows HTML and makes
the View, it makes sense to have flexible tag oriented constructions.-
Walter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list about Java Server Pages specification and reference
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anil K. Vijendran
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 12:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ELSE tag
>
>
> YMMV but I'm not too excited about turning HTML into a language with
> programming constructs etc. I'd rather see support for defining your own
> tags and hope that people would design app/domain specific tags whose
> implementations are in a good programming language like Java (with
> hopefully a standard tag library for very few general purpose tags: I
> wouldn't go farther than IF) instead of using things like SWITCH etc to
> accomplish similar things.
>
> What next -- a CLASS tag? :-) I'm tempted to implement something like
> this: :-)
>
> <class name="foo" abstract="false" access="public">
> <method name="print">
> <!-- output fun html stuff here -->
> </method>
> </class>
>
> Seriously though, I'm curious why something like
>
> <% if (condition) { %>
> output blah blah blah -- condition is true
> <% } else { %>
> you failed
> <% } %>
>
> wouldnt work just great?
>
> -Anil
> JSP team
>
> Walter Jerusalinsky wrote:
> >
> > What about this? :
> >
> > <SWITCH .....>
> >
> > <CASE ....>
> > .....
> > </CASE>
> >
> > <CASE ....>
> > .....
> > </CASE>
> > ......
> > <DEFAULT>
> > .....
> > </DEFAULT>
> >
> > </SWITCH>
> >
> > But please let it for JSP 2.0 (We want 1.0 now!)
> >
> > Walter
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: A mailing list about Java Server Pages specification
> and reference
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rod McChesney
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:47 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: ELSE tag
> > >
> > >
> > > To retain some vestige of HTML or XML syntax, I believe this would
> > > have to look like
> > >
> > > <IF>
> > > <ELSE>
> > > </ELSE>
> > > </IF>
> > >
> > > and so on. Otherwise the tags don't nest meaningfully. This kind of
> > > thing is easy to hack into a parser but SGML/HTML/XML tools won't
> > > necessarily understand it. Unless I'm just missing something...
> > >
> > > Rod McChesney, Korobra
> > >
> > >
> > > Stuart Hargreaves wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 03:38 PM 4/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > >vis a vis the discussion regarding the '.' vs. the ':', why even
> > > > >call these things "includeif"??
> > > > >
> > > > >I vote for a more programmatic syntax, like, say, "if/else" ala
> > > > >most common programming languages such as c, java and c++.
> > > >
> > > > I vote "aye" to that. I'd also like to see a convention similar to
> > > > <ELSEIF>, or <ELSEINCLUDEIF> or something to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > For example...
> > > > <INCLUDEIF PROPERTY="bean:[property]" VALUE="value1">
> > > > foo
> > > > <ELSEINCLUDEIF PROPERTY="bean:[property]" VALUE="value2">
> > > > bar
> > > > <ELSE>
> > > >
> > > > >Of course what is the analog for the <excludeif> tag? Does
> > > > ><excludeif><else></excludeif> make any sense? Or does it just
> > > > >give you a headache like it does me?
> > > >
> > > > With the existance of <ELSE>, the need for <EXCLUDEIF>
> would go away.
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > > <INCLUDEIF PROPERTY="bean:[property]" VALUE="value1">
> > > > do nothing
> > > > <ELSE>
> > > > foo
> > > > </INCLUDEIF>
> > > >
> > > > And as Terry mentioned, it would make more sense to use
> <IF> <ELSEIF>
> > > > <ELSE>. Of course, this would require a closeing tag,
> perhaps </IF> ?
> > > >
> > > > My .02
> > > > Stuart G. Hargreaves
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > (W) 415.659.6314
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ==================================================================
> > > =========
> > > > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> > > in the body
> > > > of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help,
> send email to
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
> > >
> > > ==================================================================
> > > =========
> > > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> > > in the body
> > > of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help,
> send email to
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
> > >
> >
> >
> ==================================================================
> =========
> > To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> in the body
> > of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
> ==================================================================
> =========
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
> in the body
> of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
