on 4/17/00 3:00 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. It is a pretty website (just like a slideshow and a book is a pretty
>> presentation). It isn't a web application.
>
> Given your statement, you're right. But the line is thin, don't you
> agree?
Actually I don't. Developing a web application is a lot more complicated
because you need to essentially code up a huge amount of complicated
business logic. When I did a shopping cart site for Novell, I had to figure
out and write into code a huge amount of their undocumented purchasing
business logic. For example, stupid stuff like:
if contract id # starts with a "N"
set specialid variable true
fi
5 screens later
if specialid == true
add 10% to the purchase price for products that are
more than $2000
fi
That stuff is really complicated to code up into XSLT. Using tags and beans
are great, but they only get you so far...especially when you are dealing
with real world issues where Novell hasn't even documented half of this
business logic and you end up adding it in half way through the project.
I'm sure that other people around here have had similar experiences with
their clients...
> But I'm secretly working on something that would change that :) (at
> least, I hope!)
I keep repeating this...I need it today! I don't care what is around the
corner any longer because I'm pressed with what needs to be solved today...
>> 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.
>
> I share your vision. But sometimes you just need more than stupid HTML.
That is why I like WM. It is brain dead simple...there is three parts to the
"language" and that is it:
if
else
foreach
It doesn't get much easier than that and the above certainly isn't
complicated. The other cool thing about WM is the introspection. One would
have to design more into the language if it didn't have that, but the fact
that it does and the fact that it works pretty well is AWESOME. It is so MVC
it is silly.
>> 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.
>
> True, can get very hard. But just like Java has interfaces, XML has
> schemas.
That sounds like mumbo jumbo :-)...how does that solve the problem?
> Cocoon is not a transformation engine and there is no way it can
> possible work "after" Turbine. Rather it should go the other way around:
>
> request -> Cocoon -> skeleton pages -> turbine components -> structured
> page -> transformed page
I don't like the words "no way". :-)
> I'll try to dive deeper.
Thanks...my suggestion to you is to try to develop a complex web application
so that you can get the experience doing it and I don't feel like I'm trying
to constantly show you that there is problems that need to be solved in this
area that are unique...
:-)
-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]
