On 1/16/02 10:37 AM, "Gareth Coltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Sorry about my previous post, it wasn't intended to go to the list, but it > doesn't matter! > > Anyway, Jason posted: > >>>>>>> > No problem. Turbine 3 at the core will have no knowledge of a screen, > navigation or layout but the model (the classic model) will still be a valid > usage pattern. Scarab is currently using Turbine 3 along with screens, > navigations and layouts. How you structure your view will be determined by > the collection of valves used. Turbine will be stripped down to a core > system upon which anything can be built. The classic model was the first > thing implemented and works so your screen, navigation and layout templates > can be used in Turbine >>>>>>>>> . > > I guess what I am wondering is whether the 'classic' templating model is > what will be suggested for use with Turbine 3. The thing I like about this > way of doing things, is that once you have setup layouts and navs, you don't > have to worry about them anymore. Has anybody else found a better way to do > templating, or is this still the best? I think the idea is good but it definitely has the very strong disadvantage of not streaming. All the output is buffered before being sent to the browser which is bottleneck. I have seen this and Daniel has also notice performance problems with this model. I myself am going to try and come up with something that will be convenient like the classic model but stream instead of buffer. > > Gareth > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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]>
