Greg, to answer your question, "how do I think this should work?" One improvement I can think of would be to allow this type of construct. In the tiles-defs.xml, specify a definition like:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?> <!DOCTYPE tiles-definitions PUBLIC "-//Apache Software Foundation//DTD Tiles Configuration 1.1//EN" "http://struts.apache.org/dtds/tiles-config_1_1.dtd";> <tiles-definitions> <!-- Base Layout --> <definition name="site.layout" path="/layout.jsp"> <put name="title" value="site.layout.title"/> <put name="pagetitle" value="passion"/> <put name="header" value="/tiles/header.jsp"/> <put name="body" value="/tiles/empty.jsp"/> <put name="footer" value="/tiles/footer.jsp"/> <put name="init" type="string"> /** * Page Level Initialization */ function init () { } //init </put> <putList name="styles"> </putList> <putList name="scripts"> <add value="javascript/util.js" type="string"/> </putList> </definition> </tiles-definitions> Then allow inserting, referencing and populating in one fell swoop, something similar to: <%@ taglib prefix="tiles" uri="http://struts.apache.org/tags-tiles-el"%> <tiles:insert definition="site.layout"> <put name="header" value="/tiles/index-header.jsp"/> <put name="body" value="/tiles/index-body.jsp"/> <put name="footer" value="/tiles/index-footer.jsp"/> </tiles:insert> which right now ignores all the puts in the body of the insert and just inserts the definition. This would allow you to separate the reusable definitions from the single use pages. (*Chris*) On 10/24/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Chris Pratt wrote: > First I have to create > an essentially empty file for each page that uses Tiles, something > like: > > <%@ taglib prefix="tiles" uri="http://struts.apache.org/tags-tiles- > el"%> > <tiles:insert definition="login.pane"/> First off, I'm assuming you're using Tiles 2? That may affect the way we answer the rest of your questions. This is a drawback to using Tiles in standalone mode. Tiles is meant to be inserted into the view layer of an MVC application. It is meant to interface with the controller component of an MVC framework. So, if you're using Struts or JSF, you'd configure your controller layer to forward requests to Tiles. Instead of a 2-line JSP page along with a Tile definition and associated pages for every "page" you'd have 2 lines of configuration in your controller layer along with the Tiles components for every page. But in standalone mode you don't have a front controller so your intermediate JSP page becomes the front controller. In my current project I'm using Facelets. I'd like to see Tiles implement a feature of Facelets in which the "page" calls the template. Tiles works the other way around. In Tiles you have to define a definition that references both the template and the page content. In Facelets you invoke a page that, in turn, pulls in a template. But Tiles is currently missing this feature. Maybe you should consider including a controller in your app to avoid this problem. Currently, there is no Struts 1.x support for Tiles 2, but there is Struts 2 and JSF (by way of Shale) support. Note that I haven't used either in an application yet. > Then since 90% of our files are separated into a blue section (with > breadcrumbs) at the top of the page and a white section at the > bottom, I > extended the main layout definition to add those tiles. But to > extend a > tile it apparently takes two definitions (which doesn't make any > sense to > me): > > <definition name="default.pane" extends="site.layout"> > <put name="body" value="default.layout" type="definition"/> > </definition> > > <definition name="default.layout" path="default-layout.jsp"> > <put name="bluearea" value="/tiles/blank.jsp" type="page"/> > <put name="whitearea" value="/tiles/blank.jsp" type="page"/> > <putList name="breadcrumbs"> > <add value="/|head.home" type="string"/> > </putList> > </definition> The above defines the frame of your template, but you don't have to provide 2 defs for every page do you? For example, for a "foobar" page you only need the following (plus the intermediate JSP page), correct? <definition name="foobar" extends="default.layout"> <put name="bluearea" value="mybluearea.jsp"/> <put name="whitearea" value="mywhitearea.jsp"/> </definition> Or have I missed something? I've heard talk of nested definitions whereby maybe you could combine default.pane and default.layout into one, but I'm not sure if it works or if it would be a best practice. It might depend on who you ask :-) The fact that you can extend definitions is a good thing, IMO, but you can only take the inheritance paradigm so far before it breaks down when dealing with XML-based definitions. > And since our site is internationalized we have externalized text in > resources as well as internationalized tiles_defs_fr.xml files. It > seems > like Tiles is making flow and maintainability harder not easier. To this point, in some cases, you're probably correct. It would be helpful if you would think for a minute about how you might "like" it to work. If you can post some example defs and pages that would represent your ideal environment we might be able to modify Tiles to suit. For example: * What would be your alternative to using the intermediate JSP? * What would be your alternative to using 2 extension defs to build 90% of your pages? (I know the answer is "one" def, but what would it look like?) With Tiles 2, we're still in development so, pretty much anything goes. > Is there a > best practice document somewhere that defines how to use this > technology to > make life easier rather than just making more work? Well, the doc is in progress. This is the best we can provide right now: http://struts.apache.org/struts-sandbox/tiles/index.html I think we have some best practices in mind, we just haven't had a chance to get them into the official docs yet. Thanks, Greg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
