Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 9/24/2000 5:12 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> WM is about as far away from JSP as you can get.
> >
> > Come on, this is getting close to sig material. ;-> Converting a WM
> > application to JSP should be trivial and mechanical, though of course
> > you lose the enforcement of the MVC contract... :(
>
> Should be? Why is that? JSP is a fundamentally different technology. You
> cannot embed Java code within a WM template. WM uses embedded directives and
> JSP uses SGML based tag markup.
And I am pretty sure (I haven't done it though) that the functionality
of each WM directive can be easily implemented in Java within a JSP
page, as WM functionality is covered by JSP's functionality.
I had said nothing about the reverse, converting JSP to WM, which is the
problem you correctly identified, as WM doesn't cover JSP's
functionality. (Further, it shows me you aren't reading what I am
writing, I think, or I am not writing what I am thinking.)
I am so happy with WM, I counsel friends considering JSP to try WM
first, rather than try the other way, because, as you point out JSP
isn't covered by WM, and JSP is a disgusting abomination, in my
opinion. (I think the tag libraries make it worse than ASP, which I
didn't think possible.) But we are getting a bit off topic here.
Remember the context that came from : I chose to use WM in a project for
a client because I felt that I was minimizing technology risk as I
thought I would be able to move a WM implementation to JSP w/o major
headache if problems arose.
>
> > I realize that you are an important contributor to many of the projects
> > we are discussing here, (all of you are,) and am thankful that this
> > stuff exists. But I really don't understand what I have done to warrant
> > what I interpret to be a belittling and condescending tone that you,
> > Jon, are using with me. I don't think it adds much to the discussion,
> > but I guess I am an outsider here, so I will respectfully stop here on
> > this particular thread.
>
> Like I said...I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm simply asking you to
> understand the facts before you try to restate them. It isn't belittling or
> condescending, it is pointing out that you are not using factual statements
> and asking you to go back and learn more on your own first before trying to
> use factual statements.
There is a difference between what you wrote and harsh, which I don't
mind - Next time, if you say "You are wrong, you bloviating moron, and
here's why : " I will dance for joy if you tell me why I'm wrong.
> By saying that WM and JSP are close to each other, you are simply showing me
> that you are not aware of the fact that WM really in fact tries to be about
> as far away from JSP as it possibly can. We often display scales of where WM
> and JSP sit together and they are on the furthest sides of the scale that
> you can get.
>
> <---------------------------------------------->
> Velocity Freemarker JSP
> Webmacro
Aside from the observation that when you use for the ends of the scale
the things that you are comparing, those things will be far apart, care
to elaborate a bit here?
If you are saying that it tries to be 'far away' in that rather than
unfettered access to data, control and resources available to the
designer of a JSP page, WM contrains the programmatic functionality
available to the designer to a small, limited set of actions, and that
access to any resources and application 'flow' control is entirely in
the domain of the programmer, then I agree.
On the other hand, if you say that they are both examples of a java
servlet based web application development system that allows dynamic
creation of web content, then WM is a lot closer than JSP than what I
understand Broadvision to be.
On the otherhand, Broadvision may be MVC nervana. (Haven't used it...)
> Those of us who "get it" understand that JSP is a big fat fully automatic
> gun that also happens to be loaded with bullets and the trigger is cocked
> with which you can blow your head off.
Here is another example of what you might think of as 'harsh', and I
think of as rather condescending. Just why do you think I don't
understand that? What do you think made me choose WM in the first
place, and why I would spend this much time arguing for what I think are
improvements in velocity? Why do you think I counsel consulting clients
to not go with the cover-thyne-ass branded solution of JSP from
Sun(tm)(R)(C)(etc) and look at other approaches? What of this thread
made you decide that I don't understand the problems with JSP?
> Whereas WM/VM are simply non-automatic guns that have no bullets and no
> trigger...you have to throw them pretty damn hard and with accurate aim in
> order for them to kill someone.
It would be interesting to sit down sometime and chat about what you
think I am saying, and what I think I am saying. It's pretty apparent
that as of this moment, they aren't the same thing.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
