-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is different from today with the removal of the page file we would remove the following line (for those of us who use them): <page-specification class="...">
If a designer changes file structure just because they think it would look better a different way, yes. They should be shot. However, I've seen a manager take a live site and say the layout had to change. This was a few file moves - no Java recompile (because the contents of the page-specification class didn't change) Just curious to know the intended direction for T5 with the removal of those files. (truly curiosity, not saying it should be one way or another... well, not true. I don't think it should be embedded as an annotation, but still just curious - want to know what that "mutual understanding" will consist of) Geoff Longman wrote: > Valid point - how is that different from today? > > If our designer chnaged the file structure layout of the templates > we'd be screwed. Actually we would not let her do it. > > While it's great that designer and developer don't trip over each > other in Tapestry land there has to be *some* mutual understanding on > these issues before something flies over the fence! > > Geoff > > On 5/17/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been looking around trying to mesh two parts of Tapestry and T5 > comments together - hopefully I'm missing something somewhere. > > A stated design of T5 is the negation of page and jwc files - > Annotations rule the day. > > With that in mind, where is the connection from HTML to Java? Or will > there only be a connection from Java to HTML? > > Scenario: > > Designer mocks up a site with the following structure: > index.html > blah.html > secure/ > index.html > account.html > > This is then approved and thrown over the wall to the developers to > integrate into their "back end" with the following package structure: > > com.company.tapestry > com.company.tapestry.pages > com.company.tapestry.secure > . > . > . > > From what I've gleaned from the T5 discussions, after taking into > account "no more page files" and "no more jwc files", I don't see how > the designer could change the layout of the HTML without a recompile of > the Java code to support the changes. With XML, it would require changes > to configuration, but without them? Am I missing something obvious? Or > is this the "reduce flexibility" that mandates "you start with this > structure, we map it to package structure appended to your stated > 'starting point' - period."? For example: > > .application > <meta page-classes = "com.company.tapestry"/> > > index.html == com.company.tapestry.Index > blah.html == com.company.tapestry.Blah > secure/ > index.html == com.company.tapestry.secure.Index > account.html == com.company.tapestry.secure.Account > > [curious to know if this is the plan, or if it's the Java annotations > defining the mapping] >> - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEa3VcaCoPKRow/gARAueUAJ0flV3WvKSqqUHsGJvAbscymMpI7ACgtWps bUAssgdI+XAUptC7WgsK7BM= =Ua+H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
