I think we all need to stand back and take a deep breath for a second...
Ok that's good enough! :^)
One thing that I haven't seen brought up is that the Java code one would
write in scriplets is hardly different than Javascript any HTML UI person
worth hiring would be able to whip together. I can't see any benefit in
having HTMLers who don't at least know basic Javascript. We're not talking
about rocket science stuff here, we're talking basic syntax knowledge. A
FOR loop in Java looks just like a FOR loop in Javascript. I don't see how
that will scare away a UI person. Scriplets provide functionality with
flexiblity with a syntax familiar to Javascripters.
My understanding of where things will be in 1.1 is that a mechanism for
defining custom tags will be available. I think that solution is much
better than JavaSoft trying to come up with every tag under the, er, sun.
If you need a LOOP tag, I'm guessing 1.1 will define how you'll be able to
create one.
But remember - scriplets will run everywhere, custom tags will have to be
configured for each server (not a big deal, but an extra thing to have to
worry about).
Dan
- Have you hugged a scriplet today?
> ----------
> From: Volker Stiehl[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Volker Stiehl
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 4:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AW: The horror of moving from 0.92 to 1.0
>
> Chris, thank you very much for starting this thread! You meet the point
> with your statements! Especially your following statement is true: "As a
> Java programmer, *I* prefer the scripted code too". I guess that most of
> the users of this list are, of course, Java programmers and can't imagine
> what it means to tell those who write the UIs that they can't use the new
> tags anymore. With 0.92 I was so happy to tell them: "Hey man, just a
> handful of new tags and a new world is opened for you". And they were
> willing to use these tags because they were simple to use, and that's the
> point: the were indeed simple and they were good enough for the famous 90%
> (as stated in the 0.92 specs). For sure they were not perfect as the
> discussions have shown here, but they did their job! I have presented JSP
> to many customers, always emphasizing the statemenmt: "don't use Java in
> JSP files". And now???? For me, JSP 1.0 was a shock! The tags were THE
> arguments for me. Now I'm standing in the rain.
>
>
>
> > You know what? As a Java programmer, *I* prefer the scripted code too.
> No
> > proprietary junk, more control (I mean, what if I wanted to loop
> backwards?
> > I 'd be hosed if I were using LOOP) -- it's just plain better.
> Unfortunately
> > (well, fortunately, actually ;) I'm not the person writing this stuff --
> I'm
> > writing beans & servlets & my customers (they're not really *my*
> customers,
> > btw) are writing UIs that use them. And they are not (by & large, and I
> hope
> > none of them are reading this) programmers.
>
> > And if you align the
> > code like you
> > have in your first example, it doesn't look that terrible:
>
> I agree, that's a much better way to align the code, though it still
> obfuscates the braces, which I don't care for. The JSP example code (as
> you
> know, I'm sure) does this:
>
> <TABLE>
> <%
> RowBean[] rows = results.getRows();
> for (int i = 0; i < rows.length; i++) {
> %>
> <TR>
>
> etc.
>
> but I think that's probably worse.
>
> > There are formatting beans out there if you want to move the code
> > generation
> > into a formatting bean. I believe IBM has a number of them. Or you
> could
> > easily write a bean to produce your output.
>
> That's probably the right solution, given the current state of JSP. I'm
> not
> blown away by IBM's JSP beans, but I'll take a closer look -- they might
> do
> the trick. Bottom line, though is this: JSP 1.0 makes it significantly
> more
> difficult for the people who are using my software to create their UIs.
>
> chris
>
> ==========================================================================
> =
> 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".
