I concur. One of the things I really liked about the tapestry template system was a) I could keep everything (except the jwcid) out of the template. I can hand things to a graphic designer without them having to worry about what all the funky attributes mean. :) And, as Jamie pointed out, I'm not having to regenerate or rebuild anything when I make binding changes, etc.
Robert Jamie wrote: > I'm on board with Erik's comments. With the separate glue page (page > spec) I can update a page while it's running. If this stuff is moved to > XDoclet Tags or annotations, then I have to regenerate/rebuild. That's a > step backwards. > > Jamie > > Erik Hatcher wrote: > >> >> On May 13, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Mark Stang wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't it be possible to create something in XDoclet that would >>> allow us to maintain the XML from within the java? That would be a >>> good start and it would be backwards compatible. >> >> >> >> You mean like this? :) >> >> http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/xdoclet/tags/apache-tags.html >> >> It's been done, but I'm in the camp that believes the Tapestry >> separation is done properly. I don't think annotations or XDoclet >> are necessarily the right way. Annotations might be useful in some >> cases, but I'd like to see the pros/cons of trying to get back to >> even simpler forms of componentry with POJO's and IoC. >> >> Erik >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
