Alex Smith wrote:
>
> JSP I rejected right away as something very wrong. Not only the syntax was
> unappealing (to say the least) but the idea of mixing Java and HTML in the
> same page seemed like someone's Javascript-induced nightmare. To elaborate,
> my goal was to have an HTML designer and an application developer work more
> or less in parallel. The pages and the code would be created at the same
> time and integrated daily. This is possible with JSP but the drawbacks are
> many, tight coupling between Java and HTML and lack of context (is this is a
> servlet? a client-side program? a page? SSI-enabled page ? all of the
> above?) being only the tip of the iceberg. JSP does not define exactly how
> the directives are to be processed by the JSP processor, which to me spelled
> "problem". If most of the CPU and I/O time is spent on evaluating the
> template and I dont know what's going on under the hood, it's a high time
> for me to look at another option. (As an aside, GNUJsp from bitmechanic.com
> looked better than others).
of course the whole idea behind JSP is separation of view from model. i
agree that the syntax leaves much to be desired, but i view the
technology as an enabler of tools that allow page designers to do their
job, dropping in dynamic content from a pallete of provided Bean
components. in which case noone should really ever have to look at JSP
code...
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
