Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 6/14/2000 11:47 AM, Rapha�l Luta at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Following this morning mail on WAP, I did a quick implementation of my
> > proposal
> > which does seem to fit the bill with some minor architecture changes.
> >
> > That was the good news, now the bad : Turbine is unable to handle non HTML
> > responses while still using the Layout/Page/Navigation/Screen structure.
> >
> > Why ? because RunData which gather the contents of the doBuild() handles
> > internally a org.apache.ecs.Document which is HTML oriented.
>
> That isn't bad news. That is on purpose. What is wrong with you just doing
> RunData.getOut() within your screen and returning data that way instead of
> via a return from the Screen. (ie: return null;). You can do the same exact
> thing in your Layout/Page/Navigation.
>
If I understand correctly the getOut() method, I get a direct access the
OutputStream sent to the client, this means that my Layout can't update
update its information based on what the Screen has output, or in fact that
I can do any kind of reading/postporcessing on the output, which is IMO the
main interest of Turbine layout model with ECS.
This would also mean we can't integrate the Jyve admin screens, or anything
built for Turbine but not Jetspeed.
>
> > Since these changes are not backward compatible with the current Turbine
> > or ECS codebase, I don't know if the patches will be welcome by the projects
> > maintainer and contributors.
>
> Probably not since it isn't needed. There are other ways to do the same
> thing without modifying core Turbine/ECS.
>
Thought so. Turbine is basically an HTML web framework.
Though I think the patch to ECS would make sense (creating an HTMLDocument class
in the html package, and making Document a superclass for all typed documents)
> > So may question is, if the patches aren't integrated in Turbine and ECS, what
> > do
> > you do ? Switch from turbine to another layout framework ( Cocoon ? ) ?
>
> No, switching is kind of drastic, don't you think?
>
> You should implement it another way that doesn't require the modifications
> since that is a viable and easy way to do things.
>
Switching is sure drastic, but if our layout need is not comfortably fulfilled
by Turbine capabilities, we may need to implement something else.
Currently my gut feeling is that Cocoon better fit our layout needs while
Turbine addresses quite well our backend requirements.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
