On 9/23/07, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Use the extension ".tml" (Tapestry Markup Language) for Tapestry > templates, rather than ".html". This reflects the goal of using Tapestry to > serve many kinds of markup, not just HTML (and XHTML).
The goal is indeed great and T5 has all the capabilities to achieve it. Speaking about (X)HTML development which (at least right now) is the major target for Tapestry development when i show to my web designers a template and they can simply double click on it to see it opened in their preferred web editor I've already overtaken the first barrier to their cooperation. You are right, this is just an excuse since if the content of the template doesn't change (read i can still open it in their preferred editor and edit it flawless) I'm fine, i was just talking about the first impression at first touch. It's a compromise and i see this necessary when T5 will be able to serve other markups other then (X)HTML. > 2) Move web context templates from WEB-INF to / (root). This will allow > relative paths to resources (images, etc.), much as in Tapestry 4. Preview ability is one of the best features of Tapestry, also marketing wise. This will put more pressure on the framework to assure no resources are served without before being parsed since you don't have the shield made by the servlet container. > 3) Extend the TapestryFilter to block access to ".tml" files from the > client. This addresses security concerns related to external users gaining > access to raw templates (much as we are careful to block access to Java > .class files via /asset). Oh well.. yes this is related to 2. > I think that in this day and age, any credible text editor will not have a > problem mapping the extension ".tml" to XML or XHTML. My point is that just like for java developers in most cases T5 simply "just work" , this sentence comes from another big OS project ;) , it is fantastic that it simply "just work" also for web designers having affair with T5 templates... > I think moving the files to the root, much like a JSP, is ultimately a good > thing ... as long as there is no way for such a file to be accessed by the > end user. (We would be careful, > for instance, to check caselessly for the ".tml" markup). Yep, there should be now way to access that files... and... having all files related to T5 under WEB-INF? Just like WEB-INF subfolder would be the root of the application? > I'm very strongly opposed to allowing different extensions in some > configurable manner. Just as Geoff why this is a bad idea :-). Seriously, > as invisible as the instrumentation is, it is still an XML based markup with > namespaces, even if the end-application is served up as SGML. There are > many ambiguities in the T4 code around this, which again, makes it harder to > know what the framework does in a given circumstance, or whether it is doing > the correct thing. Completely agree. > Thoughts? Unless there is a credible amount of opposition, this is > something I'd like to take care of in the next few days, for release in > 5.0.6. And I want to do 5.0.6 about as soon as I add in a DateInput > component and fix a few more bugs. Separate discussion. Well, i simply think changing the templates extension is a good thing when T5 will be able to render different markup types, right now I'm fine with .html The other side is that i already imagine how great would be to be able to use T5 to output my own XML document ... doing great REST applications without the hurdle of cooking xml soups -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
