T5-ioc moved from xml to java to leverage existing editors, .html templates did that already, so I'm for .html tempaltes
power users however should have a way to change this (change ext. or add more)... Davor Hrg On 9/19/07, Don Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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] > >
