"Diethelm Guallar, Gonzalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was trying to make my mind up whether I should fire away a question
> regarding Struts and Turbine, when someone else in the room asked the
> very question: could Craig compare both frameworks? Craig seemed to
> be a little embarrassed, and he made a reference to past, long and
> "lively" discussions on the issue. He said Turbine had started much
> earlier than Struts, before J2EE was well defined (some people would
> claim the spec is still not well defined, but anyway...), and
> therefore had to come up with a lot of stuff before that stuff was
> standardized. He mentioned connection pools, among others. He also
> said Turbine had a lot more funcionality in place, just because it has
> been around longer. And he also mentioned that the Turbine crowd
> doesn't really like JSP much, and prefer using a templating language
> for the view part of MVC.
Thanks for these notes, Gonzalo!
> Seeing how the last point was kind of open ended, I asked him to
> elaborate a little more in regards to JSP and templating languages for
> implementing the view. He (correclty) pointed out that the templating
> crowd had an even more radical position than he has toward the view
> implementation, and purposely had limited the scope of the templating
> language so that it wouldn't really let you do much "logic" on the
> page. And, finally, he presented something that could be taken as a
> disadvantage of the templating model: he said JSP is a specification,
> not an implementation, and mentioned that with JSP you have the chance
> to change from one implementation to another if you find the
> particular implementation you are using does not meet your performance
> needs (he even gave Jasper as an example of a less than optimal
> implementation, in terms of performance). With templating languages
> (and he specifically mentioned Velocity as an example), if you find
> your performance needs are not satisfied, you are pretty much screwed,
> since there is no other alternative. After this question, I had to
> leave the BOF, since I had other things to do.
Anyone who wishes not to be married to a specific template engine can
use a very thin proxy/wrapper to access their template engine. I did
this for Eyebrowse <http://eyebrowse.tigris.org/> when I ported Helm
from WebMacro to Velocity. Eyebrowse now works with both template
engines. Though we have to maintain two sets of templates, we have a
conversion program that made this step easy. Had we not had the
program, the fact that you just can't do much with a true templating
engine makes hand-conversion less of an obstacle (i.e. template
engines lack the complexity of JSP and kindred).
> Question: do we have any numbers comparing the performance of a JSP
> page vs a Velocity page? This is a very broad question, but Craig's
> argument could be completely irrelevant if, on the average, Velocity
> pages are an order of magnitude faster than JSPs... Does anybody have
> such numbers handy?
I am also extemely interested in seeing a comparison.
Daniel Rall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
