I'm also very pro-0.92. For the last few months I've been developing tags
with exactly this in mind: a set of standard facilities which can be added
into web sites, without the authors of pages having to be Java-literate.
I also can't see why the 0.92 tags can't sit alongside the 1.0 scriptlets
(which are not the most elegant-looking things, reminding me of ASPs - tho
I can see they may be extremely flexible).
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Dave Ferguson wrote:
> Chris, I couldn't agree more! We were absolutely thrilled with the way we could use
>the simple tags from the 0.92 spec. It was perfect for our business model where we
>provide JavaBeans and a standard set of JSP pages to our customers. They will want
>customize the pages for their needs, and so we want to make that as simple as
>possible for them. It was a terrific selling point to show how simple the JSP's
>were, but how powerful they could be in terms of presenting dynamically-generated
>data. Tags were the perfect answer for us.
>
> I can't understand why the pro-scriptlet crowd wants to take away our tags. I don't
>have anything against scriptlets. They are great and extremely powerful. If you
>don't like tags, don't use them. There's nothing wrong with supporting both
>scriptlets AND tags. Hopefully, future versions of the spec will address these
>issues.
>
> - Dave F.
>
> Chris Fesler wrote:
>
> > the absence of INCLUDEIF, EXCLUDEIF and LOOP are
> > killing me. Let me give a quick & easy example.
> >
> > In the application I'm working on, UI writers often have the need to
> > traverse a data set to make a table. In 0.92, this was accomplished in a
> > really lovely way:
> >
> > <USEBEAN name="results" type="ResultsBean">
> > ...
> > <TABLE>
> > <LOOP property="results:rows" propertyelement="row">
> > <TR>
> > <LOOP property="row:cells" propertyelement="cell">
> > <TD><%= cell %></TD>
> > </LOOP>
> > </TR>
> > </LOOP>
> > </TABLE>
> >
> > This was great for the following reason: it was really easy for
> > non-programmers to both understand and write (I know this from direct
> > experience, incidentally). This is, for me & my customers, terrifically
> > important.
> >
> > You can imagine what things look like now, but let me show you, if only for
> > the cathartic effect I'm hoping it will have on me:
> >
> > <TABLE>
> > <% RowBean[] rows = results.getRows();
> > for (int i = 0; i < rows.length; i++) { %>
> > <TR>
> > <% CellBean[] cells = rows[i].getCells();
> > for (int j = 0; j < cells.length; j++) { %>
> > <TD><%= cells[j] %></TD>
> > <% } %>
> > </TR>
> > <% } %>
> > </TABLE>
> >
> > To me, this is heinous. It's ugly & error-prone to boot. To my customers, it
> > may very well be incomprehensible (can you tell I'm unhappy? ;). I'm looking
> > into solutions (if anybody on the list has one, please say so!) such as
> > maybe creating some formatting beans (or even using IBM's JSP alphaBeans),
> > but there's no way they will match the high degree of intuitiveness (for
> > HTML coders) that the 0.92 version allows.
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > chris
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
>
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good Technology ltd. http://www.goodtech.co.uk/~tom/
===========================================================================
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".
