> So I really think we need a comfortable way to include content in > microsling scripts. this makes sense since we could support for different scripting languages.
regards, philipp On 10/19/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/19/07, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...a convenience class should encapsulate this in order to > > > make microsling easy to use. either: > > > sling.include(...) > > > document.include(...) > > > response.include(...) > > > > Would not do that. People know the Servlet API and we should not invent > > additional helper stuff, which is just hard to maintain. Rather we will > > provide taglibs for JSP (in Sling not microsling, though). > > Why taglibs for JSP and no equivalents for other languages? > > In my view of microsling's target audience, people should not need to > know the Servlet API to do a simple include: that's something people > do all the time, so it should be obvious. > > And I don't want to cripple microsling either, it's smaller than > Sling, less extensible, and lacks enterprise-level features maybe, but > microsling users should not feel like second-class citizens, IMHO. > > So I really think we need a comfortable way to include content in > microsling scripts. > > -Bertrand >
