<quote> I think that there are two apporoaches to the way Tapestry is developed:
a) Keep declarations and templates separate as they are now b) Merge declarations and templates, placing component definitions and bindings (and therefore logic, since the bindings now include OGNL) into the templates. </quote> ah the black and white approach to design. Design is dead didn't you hear? usability is king. Meaning real life is a AND b, only "design decisions" make it look like an exclusive OR. Frankly for most the cases I talk about , declaring my template with title and what not, is much easier in a jsp like environment and greatly speeds up development. You want to do the professional thing, and knock yourself out with all the files "to enforce type safety and bla bla bla", you can. Is it useful? I will take your word, but we can have both. <quote> I think that one way to handle the clear philosophical difference between the two camps that are forming is by creating another implementation of AbstractPage (other than BasePage) that can handle JSP-like templates. This can be done now -- the API is there. The big question is whether there is point in doing that once you use Spindle. </quote> fuck philosophy, I talk about simple usability points, 2 feet high, simple things, small points. The API is there? great! PLEASE do it. IF "spindle" is like WOF/GUI and generates the mumbo-jumbo files, that is great. Where can I get that GUI. However having the JSP like instance and state declaration is very very useful. Sure the abstraction breaks when you get to the high end applications but it is very user friendly in the low-end applications (and not so low in the case of the JBoss website/forums). I am a theoretical physicist by training. Yes "general relativity" is more abstracted and encompasses newtonian physics, yet newtonian physics is trivial to grasp and do for most people. Should I force GR on everyone? hell no, will it send most newbies back to WOF and Struts? hell yes. You guys argue that the generic framework is the most powerful, it is a dull point and I don't care, the framework is fiendlishly un-friendly to newbies and jsp coders. Does that mean you should do away with it? no. I want to say <span jwcid="PageTemplate"> <arg name="title" value="GetReal"/> <arg name="lookAndFeel" value="forDevelopers"/> ...html body... </span> without further ado. I don't want a .page for all the 200 html I have and I don't want to declare the 200 pages, because I am going to forget most of them in the .application and don't want to write the servlet either cause I don't need it... <phew/> We agree that "you need it sometimes", it doesn't mean that all of us should pay for those cases where you need. Pay the price for what you use, when you use it and if absolutely needed. Right now the price to entry is a bit high (2 days of mighty moi ;) for no good justification at my level. Introducing complexity as you go is the staple of a superior product. I am worried that you guys take pride in the price to entry to your framework. <quote> Note that making templates to use JSP or something very close to JSP is another question -- it would allow for much smoother transition for the JSP crowd. It is a very different goal, however, and should not be thrown into the argument of what would be best for long term Tapestry users (present and future) </quote> YOU ARE LOCKED IN A "EXCLUSIVE-OR" MINDSET. I want both, you want to 'scale' in what type of applications you run. Defaults are defaults, if by default I can declare the above then I will do it, I will be happy I will save time, I will save errors. If my application grows and I start getting bitten by the contract and compilation checks you claim you see (I believe it) then I can use the full blown configuration and declarative approach. Thank God for context-less languages. marc f ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
