Andy Wardley wrote:
When I said "Most people don't seem to understand MVC..." I should have added "...present company excepted, of course" :-)
I didn't mean to sound defensive about it. I'm just fishing for ideas of how to explain what I want to people.
What annoys me is when I hear that TT can't be used to build MVC systems because it allows objects in the code, subroutine callbacks, embedded Perl code (which is disabled by default) and so on. This is pure nonsense written by people who clearly don't understand MVC, TT, or both.
Yes, that's crazy talk. There's no rule that the view can't be implemented in 100% assembly language if that's what the project requires.
I've recently been working with a Java MVC framework from IBM. It has loads of Java code in the page templates, and makes calls to (read-only) EJBs from them. It does have separation, but the page templates are so ugly that I question whether any HTML coder will be able to deal with them. To me it looks horribly inefficient because rather than pass data to the view it forces the view to load all the data again (using those EJBs), but they are very proud of themselves because they claim this makes it more MVC.
I've seen at least one cleanly written and well abstracted system written in Embperl
I believe it. My main reason for using a system like TT is easy editing by HTML coders, not separation. The other advantage of using a more limited system is that the people who don't quite get it are less likely to screw it up. I've had a hard time explaining to HTML coders why I don't want them to do a ton of IFs and string comparisons in templates to determine things that I could calculate in Perl code.
- Perrin
_______________________________________________
templates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ourshack.com/mailman/listinfo/templates
