Actually what you said helps me prove my point. I'm sure most of the
people on this list come from a programming background, which is why I think we can
all appreciate totally seperating ourselves
from the presentation. In an XML/XSL environment, the programmer is just
responsible for getting the data into an XML format, and the desgner does
what ever they want with it in XSL. As far as CSS being more popular than
XSL, that may be true for now, but it is foreseeable that they will
eventually be replaced as XHTML becomes a requirement. My point is that
this type of architecture truly allows the programmer to only work with
data, and the designer to only worry about formatting that data. Just my
opinion.
Thanks,
Ray Grieselhuber
Humberto Hernadez Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/03/02 11:28 AM
Please respond to "Turbine Users List"
To: 'Turbine Users List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Ray Grieselhuber/Teamwork)
Subject: RE: Turbine Questions
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]>
