On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 10:39, Derek Hohls wrote: > Bruno > > I apologise then, if I misunderstood what you said. > > I still do not think that we should use the term "template > generator" in this context. There are "generators" and there > are "templates" and I don't think their roles should be mixed. > > That's why I was arguing for two different "takes" on the current > situation - the "JXGenerator" which sits in the same place that > other generators do (eg XSP) and allows access to, and manipulation > of, the underlying data; and "JXTemplate" which is only about > the layout and "filling in the data". If you are also saying this > then we are in agreement!
yep, we agree on the goal, though I still notice you persist on the fact that generators would do manipulation of the underlying data. I don't think this has ever been the purpose of generators and thus also XSP. Of course, things can always be misused. If I want I can start an HTTP server or send mail in the toString() mehod of an object. But that's hardly the intended use of toString(). Likewise, if someone implements the business logic and flow control of his/her site in XSP, we can't stop them. With JXTemplate the same: it is meant to use the data available from a few supplied contexts: most importantly the viewData from flowscript, and possibly environment data like the request and session objects. If used in that way, is it still different from the 'real templates'? (Just curious, I haven't found time yet to read the paper) -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
