on 4/17/00 1:17 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The point Stefano is that Turbine is a web application framework. I don't
>> care about making books or slide shows for the web.
>
> Are you kidding?
I'm not kidding.
> What is a web application, then?
I have a one line statement of this clearly stated on the Turbine homepage
in BOLD letters...
"A web based application is an application where users use their favorite
web browser in order to access secure business logic."
> Oh, I see... yes, the only thing you ever saw about Cocoon is the
> presentation that Pier and I gave at apacheCON, right?
No. I downloaded it, played with all the examples and spent at least 5 hours
with it. Can you say the same thing about Turbine?
> Maybe you should go get http://www.eurofootball.com... then tell me: is
> this a slideshow? is this a book?
No. It is a pretty website (just like a slideshow and a book is a pretty
presentation). It isn't a web application.
> Ok, sorry, I'm probably stupid, but you are saying that javascript
> experience is a luxury... but WebMacro experience is not? You are saying
> that people that are used to tags and work with them all day long, find
> easier a syntax that doesn't have anything to do with tags?
>
> Are you kidding?
It has been proven that it is possible to teach a page designer who knows
NOTHING about Java and nothing about XML or XSLT how to simply put a
$selectorBox in their HTML where they want to display something. The
designers "get it". I'm not so sure that designers will get Cocoon as easily
because even I have a hard time with it (maybe I'm an idiot...I don't know).
In a web application, EVERY screen is different, even the navigation is
different. That doesn't apply very well when dealing with XML and
transformations because you end up with a bazillion different
transformations every time. It is just to complicated to manage all that
stuff when you can do it with Turbine/Webmacro and it is brain dead
simple...
>> Now, add onto that...
>>
>> $customSelect.setMultiple(true)
>>
>> <customSelect multiple=true/>
>>
>> Personally, I'm betting that the designers will understand the first better
>> than the second.
>
> And I don't :)
So, lets just agree to disagree. :-)
>> Maybe we should have an examples competition and let the designers tell us
>> what they like best. That would be a much better solution than all of this
>> guessing and letting the W3C and Justin decide things for us.
>
> This is no competition.
Why? Because your way (or the W3C way) is the only right way? Give me a
break Mr. Gates... :-)
(Yes, I do know your pressure points. <smile>)
>> Designers don't care about validation or namespacing or transformations.
>
> They don't now, because they have no ideas of what they are for (like
> most of the people, anyway).
Nor do they care to know. I'm like them...I don't want to have to learn XSLT
just to design a web page. Looking at the spec and some of the example
documentation it is totally overwhelming. I want something that it brain
dead simple.
> Of course. Validation would tell you if it runs on the screen without
> even trying it :)
In a web application doing that is generally impossible to do in the real
world because what you did 5 screens previously matters on the screen that
you are working on now. It makes it really hard to do validation on stuff
like that.
> I was thinking about integration with Turbine and Cocoon... and webmacro
> for XML doesn't work that great...
Actually, they can work hand in hand. You can do a model like this:
Turbine->Webmacro
->Cocoon
In other words...Turbine brokers the request...calls Webmacro to build the
body and dynamic navigation portions of the page and then passes that to
Cocoon to do the transformation and rendering.
>> I think it is. I sat down with Federico and Pier on Saturday and explained
>> Turbine to him in a high level...he gets it and understands how the two can
>> play together. Lots of other people understand this as well...including
>> myself.
>
> Well, please take the time to enlighten me, then. :)
The same things that you and I talked about at ApacheCon. We can make it so
that Turbine calls Cocoon or that Cocoon calls Turbine. Not a big deal at
all. Kevin has already done a lot of Turbine/Cocoon integration as well.
This stuff is possible and not that difficult. We have Java to thank for a
lot of that.
:-)
-jon
--
Scarab -
Java Servlet Based - Open Source
Bug/Issue Tracking System
<http://scarab.tigris.org/>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
