On 18 Sep 2007, at 15:53, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On 9/18/07, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I kind of see the extension/editor issue as a straw man.
Maybe but i would not make the error of not taking in consideration
the power of the gui-guys they often talk a language more similar
to the boss's one and it's not that easy to balance.
I would prefer html or xhtml...
I think Massimo's point here is well made and very important. The
"gui-guys" or "designers" or whatever you want to call them is a
constituency that is very under-represented in this forum. And this
is a problem because they have considerable influence over technology
decisions. (Quite apart from the language they talk, they are often
client-facing and consequently were involved in "winning" the project
in the first place. This grants them a lot of clout.) The irony here
is that the traditional Tapestry approach of HTML templates is hugely
attractive to them. So we should be celebrating rather than lamenting
the fact that they are influential people. From my experience, if
they can double-click on a template (even when away from their own
machine) and see an accurate representation of the page with no tag
noise, they really, really like that. And they retain their sense of
ownership of the templates (which doesn't happen in other frameworks,
where their lovingly constructed mock-ups are stomped on and rendered
unviewable by some developer.) So I think it would require very
compelling argument to cede this ground to Wicket or Facelets or
whatever.
Ideally, you would want to retain the benefits of the old while
reaping the benefits of the new. On the face of it, the "invisible
instrumentation" angle (of using traditional Tapestry IDs rather than
Tapestry tags) could achieve this. However, it would need to be
monitored that all the things that can be done with the tags can be
straightforwardly and equivalently done with the traditional IDs. If
this is not the case, the invisible instrumentation approach will
have been implicitly deprecated. I think it would be worthwhile
giving consideration to retaining the IDs approach as the one that
would appear in the standard examples and tutorial material.
Developers will know a bit more and will play around with the
equivalent representation. Designers, on the other hand, are going to
think that tag-based templates just look like JSP to them. Which
would be a pity.
Don.
This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT Information
Services E-Mail Scanning Service, and is believed to be clean. http://www.dit.ie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
