On Saturday 16 March 2002 05:31, Matt Sergeant wrote: > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Fisher, James wrote: > > > How would you do this with your objects example? > > > > I would have all object calls return xml. > > Then they become single-use. *That* is the point. With XSP you don't have > to return XML, you return a structure like you might normally from a > method call. That way your code behind the taglibs becomes your > "Middleware" - useable from a multitude of applications, not just XSP. > > Perhaps that's more compelling for you.
Sure, but then on the flip side you end up with a bunch of "glue" code in your taglib functions to weed out parts of your objects you don't want to get into XML, reformat data, etc. Inevitably what I found as soon as I started writing extensive parts of my application was that THAT code really needed to be callable from other places as well. I too don't think there is anything fundamentally "wrong" with XSP. Its just that there is the old "I have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of feeling in my mind WRT to building applications using it. I think there are some really good aspects to it, and some not so good. Either there are design patterns that will mitigate the problems or the lessons learned with XSP should be incorporated in an even more capable framework. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
