It seems to me that velocity is way esier, perhaps it is because I have a programming background, but I half read a book on XSL/XML only being able to understand general concepts but unable to start using it right a way. However, programming in velocity was a ten minute read through the user`s guide. Furhtermore, I bet Cascade Style Sheets will be more popular among designers than XSL/XML. Therefore, a combination of (velocity, html, css) will be better to web design than XSL/XML. -- Humberto
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM To: Turbine Users List Subject: Re: Turbine Questions 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]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
