Allen Gilliland wrote:
Dave makes an excellent point here. I completely agree that we do not want to be in the business of managing multiple templating language libraries.
I agree, too. As I said in my response to Dave, I think that having the architectural capability to plug in other templating mechanisms is different from supporting multiple templating mechanisms.
I am also in strong agreement with Dave here. I am not in the mood to start introducing new libraries and frameworks just because they sound cool.
I'll provide more detail in a separate post. I'll make sure it sounds more practical than cool ;) The stuff I'm talking about is really pretty simple. The cool stuff these days is JSF and Tapestry (and of course, AJAX)...
There is nothing actually broken with the way our presentation layer is setup right now, so I don't see a big reason to change it.
I spent some time this week looking at the code and I don't think it is broken in any way. But I do think it can be improved.
However, I am willing to look into ways that SpringMVC could help with improving our urls and if I think the SpringMVC solution is compelling enough then I would be willing to start using it.
I agree with Matt that using SpringMVC just for it's URL handling would be a little silly. I think the view independence is the big win and the URL-handling is the bonus. So, if Allen is willing to look/listen at the URL handling, I'll take him up on the offer. (Anyone whose last name matches /Gilli*an*/ can't be all bad...)
-- Sean
