"Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/11/01 6:32 PM, "Geoff Soutter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Certainly I've never seen what I consider to be a clean way of letting
HTML
> > people do HTML and Java people do Java. Yes, I've seen some that are
better
> > than others (XMLC is probably the cleanest I've seen)
>
> XMLC has the disadvantage of being entirely push based. It requires
changes
> to your Java code in order to change your HTML. That is bad.
Yeah, but thats an impl detail. You could easily modify it to load the HTML
on the fly, so that the HTML could be modified separately. The main thing I
like here is that you actually start with a "proper" HTML file, without a
proliferation of proprietary "Cold Fusion" style tags. That way HTML codes
can actually code real HTML, rather than some weird proprietary HTML
sublanguage. Allaires "content management" thingo Spectra defines 400 +
tags - how is your average HTML coder gonna deal with that? Course, it has
other problems but hey, that was my original thesis ... unfortunately the
real world is a complex place :-).
> >, but there are always
> > problems if you consider anything other than completely simplistic
examples.
> > Witness Jon's Pull Model document... :-)
> >
> > Geoff
Weren't you implying that under complex (read real world) scenarios, the
tradtional Webmacro "push" style way of doing things breaks down? Thats all
I was saying. Note your pull model Webmacro starts to sound like JSP to
me... interpreted HTML...
Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
