on 4/4/00 11:12 AM, John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The pages, layouts, navigations, and screens model works great using
> FreeMarker. I do not see any reason to drop it. I guess I have modified it
> a bit to work well with the template system. But the point is that the
> current separation of content into modules (with specific purpose) is a good
> design. There is no reason to drop it just because WM can nest templates.
> FreeMarker can also do this, I just think the Turbine design is better.
I'm not saying to do away with Action's. I believe strongly in that type of
separation. What I'm not so sure about is Layout/Navigation separation in
the context of using it with a system like Webmacro.
The goal is to allow page designers the freedom over the entire UI while
still allowing the developers to come in with dynamic content. If you keep
some of the UI within the Layout/Navigation modules, then you are going to
end up with a partial UI abstraction instead of a complete one.
Here is how I think it should go (i need to buy a scanner so that i can just
scan this picture in):
request -> if action; execute action (Page) -> layout == null so execute
Screen
The Screen extends BaseWMScreen. The BaseWMScreen sets the layout to null.
The Screen has an identical named file called Screen.wm (or whatever). The
Screen sets up the context and executes the Screen.wm template. That
template then has everything it needs in order to do the navigation, layout
and body content.
I would suggest subclassing BaseWMScreen with an application specific Screen
and then extending that for the actual implementation Screen....ie:
DisplayAnswers extends JyveScreen extends BaseWMScreen
That way, it is easy for the application to setup and manage some
navigational contexts in the JyveScreen.
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
