Turbine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why is it better to have WebMacro screens include their headers and
>footers? I think it is much better to let Turbine handle assembling >the
>various parts of the page.
Here's how I'm thinking about it - If someone wants to use
WebMacro, they'd want to use it's features. It seems to me it'd
be more complicated and counter productive to have to break up
screens/Layouts/Navigations when I can just let the page authors assemble them via
#parse. After all this is just an optional Service
it doesn't break anything.
>I assume the reason is to start the response stream asap, or is >there some
>other reason. Building the page using the ECS Document, allows >various
>modules to add code (e.g. javascript or css) to the tags in a
>straightforward manner. It also makes error handling cleaner. Are >you
>going to build so that one can have the option of using it the way >things
>are now?
The problem I see ( and maybe you know a way around this ) is that
the ECS Document automatically creates the <html></html> tags. So
if page authors are writing the WebMacro pages they need to
make sure the leave those tags out, otherwise the document ends
up with duplicate tags.
To me the overall benefit of having Webmacro Service in turbine
is so that page authors can write the Web page ( with some web WM scrips ) and the
programmers can write the Screens that fill the context. The two technologies should
be fairly independent of each other except for the screens that bind them.
dave
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
