"Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/11/01 8:30 PM, "Geoff Soutter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Let me also state that at this point in time, I see Velocity+Turbine as
> being one of the best solutions out there.
I agree it has benefits over JSP, but I do think it's still too hard for
HTML only coders to deal with the Velocity syntax. Does an HTML person
understand what $data.Parameters.getString($key) means? I think not. So,
WM/Velocity is good (or at least better than JSP :-) for developing apps
where the HTML is developed by people with Java experience - but thats
exactly what I believe we should be heading away from.
In contrast XMLC seems to be heading in the right direction because template
authors need only understand (pure) HTML. Not that I'm necessarily
recommending XMLC as a practical solution, I've never used that either...
but I have written YATL, so I feel I have enough experience to comment.
> In conclusion, let me restate that I feel that Turbine+Velocity is the
right
> way to implement Pull functionality for a simple to complex web
application.
Hey Jon, come on, I know it's your baby, I don't want a flame war - I'm only
interested in the theoretical issues.
Cheers
Geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
