random thoughts, maybe you find the answer:)
1. There is no documentation about wt widgets in html templates, as that is
not implemented as I know :) I mean there is yet no templating system where
you can add WT widgets... But one can do it...
2. comparing wt widgets with templates is like comparing apples with monkeys
:). the templates were web.1, the wt widgets are more web.2 and web.3 (I
hope web.5 they will be deprecated :) )
3. WT widgets is not that much about how they are display, how html works
etc.. It is an abstraction, the same abstraction that is used when creating
complex GUI application. If you want to display a simple HTML page, probably
would be inappropriate to program with WT. If you already would like to
program a complex gui system, like an online email client, it makes sense to
use wt. You may implement complex html based client with zero html or
javascript knowledge... People programming html application get lost with
details of javascript and html ... With wt you need to know C++ and GUI
programming patterns etc.
regards
mobiphil
http://babelengine.org
http://mobiphil.com
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Shadowcat <[email protected]>wrote:
> Well, that doesn't really answer my question on the advantages of the
> widget system vs. a general template system (i.e., even if a template system
> is available, would I have better results if I used the widget system
> alone?), but since you mentioned it, can you provide a link to documentation
> on how to do this? I haven't read *all* of the Wt documentation yet, but
> thusfar I haven't seen anything that gives me the possibility to embed C++
> into native HTML with Wt. The closest I've seen is A) putting various HTML
> snippets in an XML file and calling them when desired (not the most graceful
> solution, as it makes inserting dynamic content into that HTML a little more
> tricky), or B) printing the HTML using a WText widget (not the most graceful
> solution, as it requires extra coding to accomplish the same thing.)
>
> What I'm more getting at is trying to figure out what the wt coders had in
> mind when they set it up to work with the widget system, and why they chose
> to do that instead of the template system. Was it simply an effort to make
> web development more accessible to those who hadn't done it before, or was
> there a specific goal in mind in using this format? For me, it seems the
> template system is more appropriate because I'm already very familiar with
> all the web design languages (html, CSS, JavaScript, etc), but have never
> actually made a GUI system in C++, as I've only used it in console-based
> implementations (such as MUDs/text-based online games). This means I would
> feel more in control of the layout of the site using a template system, and
> would have to do very little learning, as I'm already familiar with both the
> form and function aspects of that sort of approach. However, when this
> alternative is available, I don't want to commit to the template-based
> approach until I've heard the arguments for the other side. If there are
> significant advantages to be had by the GUI approach, which aren't readily
> apparent to me due to my lack of experience in that style of programming,
> then I'd be willing to take the extra time to learn it, rather than use the
> "quick and easy" path.
>
> Sorry if I'm rambling a little or repeating myself. I've been up working
> all night. I'm pretty tired and not entirely sure I'm being coherent. Sorry
> to be such a bother! ^^;
>
> And just so I'm sure we're on the same page... when I say template, I mean
> something like this (using the syntax offered by tntnet):
>
> ----------
> <html>
> <head>
> % string page_title="Example page";
> <title><$ page_title $></title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <{
> int a=2;
> int b=5;
> int c=a+b;
> string hello="Hello world!";
> }>
> <h1><$ hello $></h1><br />
> <$ a $> + <$ b $> = <$ c $>. Isn't that something?
> </body>
> </html>
> ----------
>
> Is that the same sort of template you're talking about? If so, I would be
> very interested to know exactly how to do that with wt, although, as I said,
> I would also still like to hear the arguments as to why NOT to use such a
> system.
>
> Thanks,
> Shadowcat
>
> mobi phil wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> the topic was already discussed here, but it is not nonsense to brainstorm
> time to time about the topic.
>
> My answer would be, you may create templates and use wt. You have for most
> of templating languages the posibility to add controls/widgets to templates.
> Nobody stops you to write scripts inside template that would connect the
> widgets.
>
> the http://babelengine.org project is intending to compine all these....
>
> regards
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Shadowcat
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Ok, first, let me say, this is more a question of comparing two
>> different approaches than of comparing two different frameworks. I
>> don't know how many of you are aware of tntnet's existence, but it's
>> a... competing? framework for using C++ in web design. The biggest
>> difference between tntnet and witty, and the one I want to explore, is
>> that it uses a template-based design (like PHP, Ruby on Rails, etc.)
>> rather than the GUI-based approach of witty. The reason that I'm
>> sending this message is that, as one more familiar with the tntnet
>> approach than the Wt approach for web design purposes, I'm having
>> trouble seeing the advantages of the GUI design. It seems to me that
>> the template design is faster, for one who already knows HTML, than
>> learning the Wt API. But, I've been reading some of the list archives,
>> and I see a lot of you complain about the template design, but no one
>> has (as far as I've seen) elaborated on WHY the template design is bad.
>>
>> I do see one benefit to the GUI design - the ability to dynamically
>> change the properties of a given widget using (for example)
>> WWidget->setStyleClass(). I can definitely see the benefits of that,
>> but I'd like to know more on the pros and cons of GUI-based design for
>> web, as opposed to template design. And I want to know both "Why is GUI
>> design good?" and "Why is template design bad?" For those who are
>> unfamiliar with tntnet, the code is also pre-compiled, just as Wt's is,
>> so there's no overhead involved in the parsing - or if there is
>> overhead, it should exist only during the compile.
>>
>> I see a lot of good things that I like about Wt - the ability to deploy
>> under Apache as a FastCGI script, for one. I'd like to continue
>> exploring Wt as a possibility, but at current, I'm seeing the template
>> design as an easier option that will shorten development time, and that
>> alone is making me lean toward tntnet even though I see the
>> capabilities, documentation, support, deployment options (I don't
>> believe tntnet can be deployed on win32), community, reputation,
>> history, amount of development, and so on, all seem to be better on Wt's
>> end. So, basically, what I'm getting at is... convince me otherwise! I
>> know everything I hear will be biased toward Wt, but that's a good
>> thing, because I want to hear arguments in Wt's favor; I'd rather use
>> Wt, if I can find a way to justify the perceived extra development time
>> to my employer, or if I can be convinced that the development time would
>> not, in fact, be that much longer.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Shadowcat
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
>> This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
>> vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
>> the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full
>> prize
>> details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
>> _______________________________________________
>> witty-interest mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
>>
>
>
>
> --
> rgrds,
> mobi phil
>
> being mobile, but including technology
> http://mobiphil.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
> This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
> vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
> the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
> details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> witty-interest mailing
> [email protected]https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
> This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
> vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
> the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
> details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
> _______________________________________________
> witty-interest mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
>
>
--
rgrds,
mobi phil
being mobile, but including technology
http://mobiphil.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
witty-interest mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
