Thanks for your quick reply, and also for the information on DVSL. I will
take a look at it.
As I said, I'm not trying to start a debate, but I'd like to press my
argument a little further, so that I am convinced. Velocity definitely does seem to be
a much cleaner implementation that
many of the other frameworks that I have seen. The reasons that I think
XML/XSL has an advantage over these types of projects, however, are listed
below:
1. As the XSL standard matures, it seems fair to say that learning XML/XSL
is a reasonable thing for Web Designers to do.
2. To me, almost all presentation frameworks "look" like another scripting
language (if-else statements, loops, etc.) Granted, XSL has some of the
same capabilities, but it is also very widely accepted. Designers are much
more likely to know XSL than "X" Template language.
3. The output from the application is straight XML, and it is a trivial
matter to design multiple stylesheets for differing clients. (Well kind of
trivial. ;-) ) This is probably going to get even better as tools like XML
Spy and others mature.
I am by no means an expert on this, but these are some issues that I have.
I would like to hear your responses.
Thanks,
Ray Grieselhuber
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/03/02 11:34 AM
Please respond to "Turbine Users List"
To: Turbine Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Ray Grieselhuber/Teamwork)
Subject: Re: Turbine Questions
On 1/3/02 11:12 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I am new to Turbine, and so far I really like what I see in some
aspects.
> I especially like the pluggable services architecture. The main issue
that
> I have is the usage of templating engines like Velocity. I don't mean to
> start a debate, or snub any of the Velocity developers/users of Velocity
> or any template engine. But I have got it in my head that using straight
> XML/XSL to display content/data to the user is a much more simple way to
> develop web applications.
Not when you're working with a sizeable team which in part consists of
developers accustomed to HTML and CSS. Using Velocity allows designers to
operate in an environment which is more comfortable to them and Velocity
is
become widespread in use because of this.
Many webapp frameworks support Velocity and the support is growing. Even
in
projects like Struts that were originally completely JSP have now modified
their approach to allow the use of Velocity because it is rapidly becoming
accepted as a viable alternative to JSP or XSL for that matter.
BTW: If you do like XSL than you may really like DVSL which allows you to
transform XML documents using Velocity macros. You can take a peek at DVSL
here:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-velocity-dvsl/
> Is there a reason for not doing so within
> Turbine? If there are legitimate reasons, I would like to know. Hope my
> question makes sense.
> Thanks!
> Ray Grieselhuber
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
http://tambora.zenplex.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
