Oops. Sorry everyone, that was not supposed to be posted to the list.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Schnitzer
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 8:47 PM
> To: Orion-Interest
> Subject: RE: Standar Template
>
>
> We finally released our framework, so I have some breathing
> time now :-)
> I'd love to take a look to see if we can find synergy. The
> only caveat
> is that I would like to avoid GPL; code would need an
> MIT/BSD/Apache (or
> equivalent) license.
>
> If you're interested, take a look at Maverick:
>
> http://mav.sourceforge.net
>
> Later!
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Lopez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:27 AM
> > To: Orion-Interest
> > Subject: Re: Standar Template
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I haven't looked much into SiteMesh, but, just looking at the
> > overview,
> > it seems to me that you still have to generate the content of the
> > different sites that you want to "mesh", and if they look totally
> > different then you are out of luck.
> > We are using the same approach that Jeff is talking about
> and we don't
> > consider XML/XSL to be that slow, as using precompiled
> stylesheets we
> > boosted aour performance by a factor of three and the "heaviest"
> > operation is accesing the database. As XSLT implementations
> > improve day
> > by day, I hope this will be less of a problem in the
> future. And using
> > XML as the common ground is, IMHO, a very good approach to
> integrating
> > different applications as you can use common stylesheets to
> integrate
> > the different sources.
> > But I won't pretend it is a perfect solution or that
> everybody should
> > use it. That's what we use because it fits well into our team and
> > requirements. And, Jeff, we also created our own framework to
> > basically
> > allow us to get the XLM content from various sources,
> > including directly
> > from PLSQL, so if you want we could talk about it privately.
> > We GPLd our
> > framework but we haven't publicized it as we don't have much
> > time to do
> > so.
> > Just my 2c,
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
> > >
> > > Noooooo - XML/XSL is too slow / fugly to actually use day
> > to day (IMHO)
> > >
> > > I'd advise you to check out SiteMesh - it's built for this
> > exact purpose!
> > >
> > > http://www.opensymphony.com/sitemesh
> > >
> > > Quite simply you provide JSP based decorators which are
> > mapped to URIs.
> > >
> > > Download and install the sample app, it's the only way to
> > learn about it.
> > >
> > > $10 says you're using it within a week ;)
> > >
> > > -mike
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Jeff Schnitzer
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:12 AM
> > > > To: Orion-Interest
> > > > Subject: RE: Standar Template
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've iterated through several solutions to this problem
> > and can offer
> > > > some advice:
> > > >
> > > > I started out using option 1 as you describe. I quickly
> > noticed that
> > > > *every* page contains the definition of the layout and
> look of the
> > > > website. What if I wanted to put the navigation bar on
> the right
> > > > instead of the left? I would have to modify *every
> > single page* in my
> > > > website. Yuck.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My next step was to put the "container" code in separate
> > head/foot JSP
> > > > files and @include them like this:
> > > >
> > > > <%@ include file="head_stuff.jsp" %>
> > > > <p>
> > > > My content
> > > > </p>
> > > > <%@ include file="foot_stuff.jsp" %>
> > > >
> > > > Which at least puts all the look and feel stuff in a
> > handful of places.
> > > > But my site has different templates for the "logged in"
> > user vs the
> > > > welcome/signup screens and a few other special cases as
> well. It
> > > > quickly became a pain to keep track of all the different
> > headers and
> > > > footers, and in any case opening tags in one file and
> > closing them in
> > > > another really sucks. Yuck.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Next step was option 2 as you describe. I created
> > > > "template_inside.jsp", "template_outside.jsp", etc which
> > contain all the
> > > > layout structure and then include the appropriate content
> > file based on
> > > > a parameter. Since I'm using an MVC framework, this is
> > pretty easy to
> > > > do.
> > > >
> > > > This is the best option I've described so far, and it
> > works. But it's
> > > > not very sophisticated, and it doesn't make having
> > multiple layers very
> > > > easy. Fortunately I'm working on my own time, so now I'm
> > moving on to
> > > > the fourth generation of my website content:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This sort of templating is where XSLT really shines.
> Rather than
> > > > creating templating layers from the top down, XSLT allows
> > you to start
> > > > at the bottom and build up, successively transforming the input.
> > > > Wrapping (in a layout template) is just one kind of
> > transformation.
> > > > Each step has no need to know anything specific about the
> > previous step;
> > > > it's all just based on transformation rules.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still near the bottom of the XSLT learning curve, but
> > I'm already
> > > > amazed at how powerful it is. It's also a lot easier to
> > pick up than I
> > > > had expected from first looking at a sample.
> > > >
> > > > The only problem with using XSLT in a web application is
> > the lack of
> > > > framework support. Cocoon did not make a favorable
> > impression on me (to
> > > > say the least). I wanted something that provides a
> > simple MVC paradigm
> > > > like WebWork or (not-so-simple) Struts but uses XSLT
> for the view
> > > > templating. So I (and a friend) sat down and wrote it.
> > Tomorrow we'll
> > > > send out a link to the sourceforge site; we're still
> > working on the
> > > > documentation and examples.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In summary: For a simple approach, Option 2 as you
> > describe isn't bad.
> > > > For (IMNSHO) a more elegant and powerful approach, it's
> > worth looking
> > > > into XSLT.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Schnitzer
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > http://www.similarity.com (still using WebWork, but not
> > for long :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dave Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:17 PM
> > > > > To: Orion-Interest
> > > > > Cc: Dan Tharp
> > > > > Subject: Standar Template
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to create a web app in which every page on the site
> > > > > has a standard
> > > > > header along the top and a standard menu along the left
> > edge (a pretty
> > > > > standard thing).
> > > > >
> > > > > I came up with 2 ways of doing this:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Use a table tag and jsp:include tags on EVERY page:
> > > > >
> > > > > <table>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td colspan="2">
> > > > > <table>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> > > > > <td valign="top">
> > > > > THIS IS WHERE THE PAGE-SPECIFIC CONTENT (i.e.
> > the body)*
> > > > > </td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > </table>
> > > > > </td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > </table>
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Invert the above solution to create one master template
> > > > > (or controller)
> > > > > and have the content page name passed in as a parameter. Here
> > > > > would be the
> > > > > master template-controller page:
> > > > >
> > > > > <table>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td colspan="2">
> > > > > <table>
> > > > > <tr>
> > > > > <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> > > > > <td valign="top">
> > > > > <jsp:include
> > > > > page="<%=request.getParameter("contentPage")%>" />*
> > > > > </td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > </table>
> > > > > </td>
> > > > > </tr>
> > > > > </table>
> > > > >
> > > > > The key difference between these two architectures are best
> > > > > understood by
> > > > > looking at the 2 lines with the * at the end. Also, in option
> > > > > 2, there is
> > > > > only one copy of the above code. In option 1, there is one
> > > > > copy "per content
> > > > > page"
> > > > >
> > > > > Q1: Does anyone have any preference between options 1 and 2?
> > > > > Q2: Is there a better way of achieving this result?
> > > > > Q3: Do either have any negetive drawback I need to consider?
> > > > > (I will be
> > > > > converting an entire site)
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I'm currently achieving this effect VERY easily
> > > > > using good old
> > > > > client-side html frames. But due to popular demand,
> > framse must go.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Ford
> > > > > Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
> > > > > http://www.smart-soft.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
