One thing this argument might come down to is why custom tags, especially
for "if...else" stuff (which, BTW, IMHO is not handled real well by the
struts tags...would be nicer to have more flexibility in the conditions you
can check and to have the ability to do else, rather than
<logic:equal>...</logic:equal><logic:notEqual>...</logic:notEqual>...but
that's another discussion :-). In other words, if it is so easy to just
slap some Java in their to do some conditional stuff, why use a clumsy tag.
I think that simply comes down to what someone already referred to as a
"separation of church and state" belief, but I think of it more practically.
If you currently or would like to eventually have "HTML people" do your
presentation, reserving the "Java people" to do the programming, then you
need to provide the HTML people tools that are consistent with the type of
things they are used to and also with the tools they use. It is easier to
get Java syntax wrong, for someone who isn't a Java programmer, than it is
to get a tag wrong.
Now, if you always plan to use Java programmers to do your presentation (bad
idea, IMHO), this is not as strong of an argument, but then the other
arguments that have been used are better (i18n, etc.).
Good luck,
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Firmin David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:47 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Help me defend Struts taglibs!!!
>
>
> Hi all,
> Members of my team are gradually turning against using the
> Struts taglibs
> and resorting to scriptlets.
> IMHO: scriptlets bad, tags good. I've had more experience in
> using them
> than the others, but I'm finding it difficult to fight my
> corner in the face
> of ever increasing skepticism.
> Could anyone out there with really valid arguments as to why
> the use of the
> Struts taglibs (especially the logic tags as they're getting
> the most grief
> from my team at the moment) or taglibs in general is "good",
> or why the use
> of scriptlets is "bad" help me out (in the interest of
> fairness, vice versa
> arguments also happily received!)??
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Regards
> David
>
> **************************************************************
> **********
> The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely
> for the addressee(s).
> Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not
> an intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the
> information contained in the email.
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Capco.
>
> http://www.capco.com
> **************************************************************
> *********
>
