Hi, John.
Thanks for the rundown.
The reason I ask is that my experiences are aminly in JSPs, rather than in
WM or FM.
Personally, I see what you mean about people tending to bung in heaps of
code into the JSP template itself. This is wrong. The way we use JSPs is
purely as an HTML template, which instantiates the relevant objects at the
beginning and proceeds to call methods in those objects to capture any
necessary output. The result is a fairly clean template, which even
third-party graphic designers have worked well with, with easy integration
of Javascript as well. Also, the JSPs get compiled into a servlet, and the
bytecode is then stored by Tomcat (I am not sure how other JSP processors
work). Response times have been very good, even under load.
The biggest problem with JSPs is maintaining discipline!! I have seen
tendencies in my development teams to stick in actual code in the JSP
itself - which loses the HTML/application abstraction properties of such a
template engine.
I just wanted more info on how WM/FM worked, and whether JSPs were the way
to go.
Cheers,
--
Manik Surtani
Chief Technology Officer
Espada (Private) Limited
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John McNally
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:05 PM
> To: Turbine
> Subject: Re: Turbine & JSPs
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Manik Surtani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 12:46 AM
> Subject: Turbine & JSPs
>
>
> > How could the Turbine framework work with JSPs?
>
> I am working on improving the JSP integration with Turbine. I
> have only got
> so far as to clean up the WM/FM template code, so that it might be useful
> for JSP's as well.
>
> > Basically, I mean using
> > JSPs strictly as an alternative to webmacro or freemarker ....
> >
> > And what are the pro's and cons of using these different template
> > technologies?
> >
>
> Put simply:
>
> WM has less functionality built into its template language. (Which some
> consider to be just the right amount.) FM has a few more things like
> functions, which some find very useful, but some consider too hard for a
> designer to maintain.
>
> WM uses introspection so that "normal" business objects can be accessed by
> the template. FM requires that wrappers be written around your business
> objects or Screens can store the values needed for display within the
> context. I am not too familiar with JSP yet, but it seems the
> introspection
> is limited to bean like properties.
>
> JSP, of course, does nothing to limit including complex
> functionality within
> the JSP template and in fact many use JSP's as an inverted servlet and
> include all sorts of code in the template.
>
> WM does a much better job of enforcing separation of content and function
> than JSP and supports a wider range of objects (that are easy to access)
> within the template. I estimate that JSP templates may be 2-3
> times faster
> on generating the response. But this estimate just assumes a JSP
> is as fast
> as a servlet which uses out.print() to generate the response, I have not
> tested this. Some limited testing I did between FM and WM showed
> that they
> were similar in response time.
>
> John McNally
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
