Maybe I misunderstood how content was processed and displayed, but I was
under the impression that html pages were embedded with Velocity template
language, which seems similar to other scripting langauges. If this is not
how it works, I'll keep reading. I have only read about Turbine so far,
not much on Velocity.
Ray Grieselhuber
John McNally
Sent by: jmcnally
01/03/02 01:50 PM
Please respond to "Turbine Users List"
To: Turbine Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: (bcc: Ray Grieselhuber/Teamwork)
Subject: Re: Turbine Questions
I am missing the argument here. You can use velocity to output xml/bad
html/xhtml/...
What are you planning to use to generate the xml and why do you think
that is better than velocity?
john mcnally
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
