I've iterated through several solutions to this problem and can offer
some advice:
I started out using option 1 as you describe. I quickly noticed that
*every* page contains the definition of the layout and look of the
website. What if I wanted to put the navigation bar on the right
instead of the left? I would have to modify *every single page* in my
website. Yuck.
My next step was to put the "container" code in separate head/foot JSP
files and @include them like this:
<%@ include file="head_stuff.jsp" %>
<p>
My content
</p>
<%@ include file="foot_stuff.jsp" %>
Which at least puts all the look and feel stuff in a handful of places.
But my site has different templates for the "logged in" user vs the
welcome/signup screens and a few other special cases as well. It
quickly became a pain to keep track of all the different headers and
footers, and in any case opening tags in one file and closing them in
another really sucks. Yuck.
Next step was option 2 as you describe. I created
"template_inside.jsp", "template_outside.jsp", etc which contain all the
layout structure and then include the appropriate content file based on
a parameter. Since I'm using an MVC framework, this is pretty easy to
do.
This is the best option I've described so far, and it works. But it's
not very sophisticated, and it doesn't make having multiple layers very
easy. Fortunately I'm working on my own time, so now I'm moving on to
the fourth generation of my website content:
This sort of templating is where XSLT really shines. Rather than
creating templating layers from the top down, XSLT allows you to start
at the bottom and build up, successively transforming the input.
Wrapping (in a layout template) is just one kind of transformation.
Each step has no need to know anything specific about the previous step;
it's all just based on transformation rules.
I'm still near the bottom of the XSLT learning curve, but I'm already
amazed at how powerful it is. It's also a lot easier to pick up than I
had expected from first looking at a sample.
The only problem with using XSLT in a web application is the lack of
framework support. Cocoon did not make a favorable impression on me (to
say the least). I wanted something that provides a simple MVC paradigm
like WebWork or (not-so-simple) Struts but uses XSLT for the view
templating. So I (and a friend) sat down and wrote it. Tomorrow we'll
send out a link to the sourceforge site; we're still working on the
documentation and examples.
In summary: For a simple approach, Option 2 as you describe isn't bad.
For (IMNSHO) a more elegant and powerful approach, it's worth looking
into XSLT.
Jeff Schnitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.similarity.com (still using WebWork, but not for long :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:17 PM
> To: Orion-Interest
> Cc: Dan Tharp
> Subject: Standar Template
>
>
> I want to create a web app in which every page on the site
> has a standard
> header along the top and a standard menu along the left edge (a pretty
> standard thing).
>
> I came up with 2 ways of doing this:
>
> 1. Use a table tag and jsp:include tags on EVERY page:
>
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td colspan="2">
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> <td valign="top">
> THIS IS WHERE THE PAGE-SPECIFIC CONTENT (i.e. the body)*
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> 2. Invert the above solution to create one master template
> (or controller)
> and have the content page name passed in as a parameter. Here
> would be the
> master template-controller page:
>
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td><jsp:include page="standardHeader.jsp"/></td>
> </tr>
> <tr>
> <td colspan="2">
> <table>
> <tr>
> <td valign="top"><jsp:include page="/menu.jsp" /></td>
> <td valign="top">
> <jsp:include
> page="<%=request.getParameter("contentPage")%>" />*
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
> </td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> The key difference between these two architectures are best
> understood by
> looking at the 2 lines with the * at the end. Also, in option
> 2, there is
> only one copy of the above code. In option 1, there is one
> copy "per content
> page"
>
> Q1: Does anyone have any preference between options 1 and 2?
> Q2: Is there a better way of achieving this result?
> Q3: Do either have any negetive drawback I need to consider?
> (I will be
> converting an entire site)
>
> By the way, I'm currently achieving this effect VERY easily
> using good old
> client-side html frames. But due to popular demand, framse must go.
>
> Dave Ford
> Smart Soft - The Java Training Company
> http://www.smart-soft.com
>
>
>
