--- "Davidson, Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I recently saw the term "Dog Food" and found it amusing. I might not be > using it correctly in this context ( I just might be eating some dog > food > with my prior email :-) ) . What I was trying to get across is that just > because there are other languages/technologies that allow programmers to > build applications in a poor manner, that in itself should not be used > to > justify the addition of features that would allow Struts based > applications > to be built in the same manner. I chose struts as the framework for our > web > development specifically because it didn't allow the type of mixing of > logic > and presentation that was mentioned earlier in this thread. If I wanted > to > mix logic and presentation I would use PHP, it makes it very easy to do > that. If struts is going to be MVC, then let's keep it MVC.
This discussion has had little to do with Struts and much to do with the JSTL. David > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:30 AM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: Using JSTL tags instead of Struts tags > > > I'm familiar with the tech idiom "dog-food" .. but I have no idea what > it is you're talking about please can you explain what you understand > by dog-food coding? > > If your saying what I think you are are you sure you're not choking on > some? > > > On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:36 PM, Davidson, Glenn wrote: > > > Please tell me that this is the start of a new urban legend and a > joke. > > There are people who like "Dog food" coding (see PHP, Perl) but this > > should > > not be used as an excuse to pollute what Struts stands for. I > > understand > > that you want to increase the acceptance of Struts but history has > > shown > > that as soon as you start down the slippery slope of including "Dog > > Food" > > features you become the technology providers that you currently make > > fun of. > > I humbly request that you reconsider SQL tags and other "Dog Food" > > features. > > Struts has made a great start and up till now the direction has been > > solid. > > No "Dog Food" please! > > > > Glenn > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Galbreath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:20 PM > > To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' > > Subject: RE: Using JSTL tags instead of Struts tags > > > > > > I think this approach is bullshit. Why would you develop "SQL" tags > > to get > > access to the db from the view? You are contradicting yourself...this > > > is > > exactly what PERL and PHP do. This is not good programming practice! > > > > Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:38 PM > > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, David Geary wrote: > > > >> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:22:17 -0600 > >> From: David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: Struts Users Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: Using JSTL tags instead of Struts tags > >> > >> On Thursday, Jul 10, 2003, at 15:18 America/Denver, Mark Galbreath > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Is this the same David Geary that wrote, among others, "Advanced > >>> JavaServer Pages?" > >> > >> Yes. > > > > David was also a member of the JSR-52 expert group (JSTL), and he's on > > > the > > JSR-127 expert group (JavaServer Faces) as well. > > > > I've never been a fan of having SQL tags (especially the updating > > ones) in > > JSTL, for all the obvious reasons. However, there are a whole bunch > of > > developers in the world who are used to model 1 style development (VB, > > > PHP, > > PERL, Cold Fusion, ...), and it would not be fair for expert groups to > > ignore the needs of those developers, simply because we might not like > > > what > > people will do with the result. This was a case where the group > > creating > > the standard was actually listening to what users wanted. > > > > Beyond that, it *is* feasible to separate business logic and > > presentation > > logic into separate JSP pages, and enjoy the fact that the page is > > automatically recompiled without needing the app to be restarted. > > Couple > > that with the fact that Struts lets you say that a particular <action> > > really does a RequestDispatcher.include(), and you've suddenly got the > > ability to program Actions as JSP pages ... sort of a mind twisting > > approach, but it seems like it would be feasible in scenarios where > the > > business logic is simple enough to be scripted in JSP tags that are > > only > > used for their side effects, not for their output (which would get > > thrown > > away anyway when Struts ultimately forwards to the presentation JSP). > > > In > > such a scenario, having SQL access tags would make a lot of sense. > > > >> > >> > >> david > > > > Craig > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
