I've spent a couple of days mucking about with the new JSP, and I have to
say, I come down hard in the camp of those who are unhappy. There are some
great things in 1.0 -- for instance, the retirement of SETONCREATE and
SETFROMREQUEST -- but the absence of INCLUDEIF, EXCLUDEIF and LOOP are
killing
of them. Or you could
easily write a bean to produce your output.
Dan
> --
> From: Chris Fesler[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 4:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: The horror of moving fro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 4:58 PM
Subject: The horror of moving from 0.92 to 1.0
>I've spent a couple of days mucking about with the new JSP, and I have to
>say, I come down hard in the camp of those who are unhappy. There are some
&g
> Sorry to read about your pain, but I actually prefer the new
> code!
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
> Sorry to read about your pain, but I actually prefer the new
> code! I don't
> have to remember what are no worse than proprietary tags and
> their syntax,
> and can easily write code that is going to be infinitely more
> flexible than
> LOOP and INCLUDEIF and EXCLUDEIF can be. And if you alig
> On the other hand, one of the stated aims of JSP was to separate
> presentation from content, in order to allow HTML people
> (non-programmers by assumption) to do the presentation while
> the programmers create the content.
hm, did I miss this in the spec Maybe I should read it again
Ricahrd,
>
>On the other hand, one of the stated aims of JSP was to separate
>presentation from content, in order to allow HTML people
>(non-programmers by assumption) to do the presentation while
>the programmers create the content.
>
I agree with the first half of this sentence, but I'm not sur
to let
you
write Web Applications.
Hope this helps,
- eduard/o
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Fesler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 7 May 1999 10:56
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The horror of moving from 0.92 to 1.0
>
> > Sorry
I believe that JSP Team's idea is to find better tags than and
for 1.0, not to eliminate its functionality .- Think that both were
questioned in this list, with good reasons, I guess.-
Shouldn't we propose cleaner tag oriented alternatives as James Klicman did
for the ProcessRequest thread?
Pe
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 i
On Friday, May 07, 1999 13:52, Volker Stiehl
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> 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
>From: Drew Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:06:41 +1000
>So, I'm my opinion, one of the main advantages of JSP is the ability to
>use either or both of these methods as appropriate.
Agreed. I don't want to give up either method.
However, I would much prefer a way to build my
Right on, Chris. I couldn't agree more. Of course all of this stuff could
be done with scriptlets -- all of it could be done in servlets for that
matter. But that's not the point. The tags that were present in 0.92, while
maybe not fully thought out, were a godsend for the separation of logic
I just wanted to second these remarks. JSP is all about separation of
programming logic from presentation. The ability to use one syntax for
programming (i.e., Java) and another syntax for presentation (i.e., HTML
and HTML-like tags) makes this separation very clear and maintainable.
I don't thin
I actually prefer XML tag extensions over scriptlets. While I am
clearly able to write HTML, that doesn't mean that I enjoy it or want to
do it as part of my job. Similarly, most of our producers understand
basic scripting, but they aren't really interested in being
programmers. An XML JSP impl
It's been well stated already, but I wanted to point out that having a
developer write HTML as well is a waste of resources, especially when you
have to take browser incompatibilities into account (and given the $$ rate
of HTML coder vs. developer). A usable and intuitive tag-based system makes
m
ut).
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 y
Daniel Kirkdorffer wrote:
>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 wou
Hi Dan & all the rest of you!
> I think we all need to stand back and take a deep breath for a second...
[Chris hyperventilates and passes out]
> Ok that's good enough! :^)
[Chris wakes up & shakes off the haze]
Ooh, I feel better now : )
> One thing that I haven't seen brought up is that th
Well said. In the context of an HTML template,
what the heck does this mean?:
<% } %>
...it is not really human-readable.
, on the other hand, at least
tells you "this is the end of a repeating
block of HTML."
You don't need too many tags to make
a good HTML template system. In fact
you only n
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Mark A. Kolb wrote:
> I just wanted to second these remarks. JSP is all about separation of
> programming logic from presentation. The ability to use one syntax for
> programming (i.e., Java) and another syntax for presentation (i.e., HTML
> and HTML-like tags) makes this sepa
In the meantime there are other tools, such as WebMacro, which you
could use to give non-programmers access to your objects.
http://webmacro.org
Justin
Quoting Chris Fesler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > My understanding of where things will be in 1.1 is that a mechanism for
> > defining custom
TK Sung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >On the other hand, one of the stated aims of JSP was to separate
> >presentation from content, in order to allow HTML people
> >(non-programmers by assumption) to do the presentation while
> >the programmers create the content.
> I agree with the firs
Nic Wise [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > we find the content horribly intermingled with the presentation
> > again. Two roles have to collaborate to produce this particular
> > JSP code - a programmer who can write correct scriptlets, and an
> > HTML designer who develops the HTML presenta
> From: h wulfson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> You don't need too many tags to make
> a good HTML template system. In fact
> you only need two: loops and conditionals.
> If you have to do something unusual like
> iterate through an array backwords, the
> reversal logic should be in a bean.
I mos
i would love someone to do a comparison of WebMacro Vs. JSP Vs. Enhydra's
XMLC
On Fri, 7 May 1999, Justin Wells wrote:
> In the meantime there are other tools, such as WebMacro, which you
> could use to give non-programmers access to your objects.
>
>http://webmacro.org
>
> Justin
>
> Quotin
1999 6:48
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The horror of moving from 0.92 to 1.0
>
> Nic Wise [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > > we find the content horribly intermingled with the presentation
> > > again. Two roles have to collaborate to produce th
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 s
>
> I think this is the final argument that wins many of the problems people
> have posted here. There has been a thread concerning whether to provide
> thread-safe abilities into the servlet engine for sessioning; I think we
> should, especially if non-programmers are the ones using JSP; they
>
For some unknown reason this title reminds me of Marlon Brando
in "Apocalypse Now!" ...
8^)
Let me try and clarify, JSP HAS AT LEAST TWO DISTINCT DESIGN CENTRES:
1) a Scriptlet-centric design, where content and computation are
intermixed,
compu
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
(
As Bob Foster and the Orion team has pointed out, the implementations can tacitly
agree to create jsp92:includeIf, jsp92:loop, etc. and wait for the JSP team to flesh
out the core tags in 1.1.
I'd rather give the JSP team time to make the core tags nice, rather than forcing them
to rush throug
On Mon, 10 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I think this is the final argument that wins many of the problems people
> > have posted here. There has been a thread concerning whether to provide
> > thread-safe abilities into the servlet engine for sessioning; I think we
> > should, espec
--- Brad Neuberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even though embedded
> properties "technically"
> violates good object-oriented encapsulation, it
> makes for much more
> readable and createable code. For example, tell me
> which is more
> readable:
>
someObject.getProperty1().getProperty2().getProp
I'm sorry! I meant "rhetorical question."
That's embarrassing. I hadn't had my coffee yet...
-Harris
> To answer your redundant question, the embedded
> properties are more readable and writable, and it
> doesn't really violate OO encapsulation: the
> properties can still only be exposed through
For what it's worth, "embedded properties" are exactly how
WebMacro works. It's also more aggressive than the bean spec
about introspecting objects. For example, it's willing to
loop with iterators or enumerations, and also
$Foo.Bar.Baz
can be extracted from Foo.getBar("Baz"), which is usef
Walter Jerusalinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe that JSP Team's idea is to find better tags than and
> for 1.0, not to eliminate its functionality .- Think that both were
>questioned in this list, with good reasons, I guess.-
As it stands now, though, those of us who have found value i
37 matches
Mail list logo
