You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se> on 2004/12/04 19:31:43 UTC
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Jonas Ekstedt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
> snip...
>
>>if(<test>)
>>----------
>>
>>example:
>>
>><div do="if(count(cart/item) == 0)">
>> Your cart is empty
>><div>
>>
>
> How would you implement choose/when?
I woudn't, don't think it works that well with Dreamweaver and such
things. You can use a number of if instead. I would also assume that
there is an upper bound on complexity when "fill in the blanks"-style
templating isn't feasible anymore and when it becomes more or less
meaningsless to try to edit it in dreamweaver. In such cases rule based
templates are better.
Anyway, my Dreamweaver experience is quite limited, I used it for
implementing a site design from Illustrator to HTML and CSS. It was fun
for a short while. But I'm not the right kind of person for using
dreamweaver. I'm fanatic in avoiding any style elements in HTML so I do
everything in CSS and DWs CSS support didn't impress me. So after a
while I went back to emacs again :)
Hopefully people that have succeded in using DW to their advantage will
tell whats needed and usefull.
> snip...
>
>>Several directives
>>------------------
>>
>>So, how do we handle multiple directives for one element? We could
>>handle the TAL example above like:
>>
>><p
>>do="let(x=/a/long/path/from/the/root;if(x);content(x/txt);attributes(class=x/class)">
>> Ex Text
>></p>
>
>
> Isn't there a risk that attribute templates become unreadable?
As said above, I don't think they are intended for complicated designs.
I would use XSLT in such cases. My example above was chosen more for
desscribing the mechanism than for being realistic.
Furthermore I forgot a paranthese in a place that was quite bad from a
pedagogical POV. It should have been:
<p
do="let(x=/a/long/path/from/the/root);if(x);content(x/txt);attributes(class=x/class)">
Ex Text
</p>
I find it actually quite readable, but thats probably because I designed
it ;) and also have spend a lot of time with functional programming
languages (e.g. that in Mathematica). You can think of ';' as functional
composition.
> snip...
>
>>Connection to JXTG
>>------------------
>>
>>The directives are almoust defined in such a way that they could be
>>translated to a tag based templating language like:
>>
>>directive(param_1=value_1,...,param_n=value_n)
>>
>><=>
>>
>><jx:directive param_1="value_1" ... param_n="value_n"/>
>>
>>Maybe we could find a attribute directive language that allows for
>>complete correspondance. And make tag or directive syntax selectible and
>>in such way make this effort compatble with JXTG?
>
> I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of
> Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find it
awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we have a
user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot change
dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the forseable future
so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before
someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax,
namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they need
the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand their
own best ;)
/Daniel
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
>> Leszek Gawron wrote:
>>
>>> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a
>>>> discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a
>>>> conference) and so we should support it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't agree more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What would you do then if you started simple (with attributes) and
>>> found out after a while (when the template is already quite big) that
>>> you need a tag syntax in some places?
>>>
>>
>> Aren't they completly equivalent?
>
> Yes they are (will/would be). Thing is you do not want them to coexist
> in a single template.
Without a usecase where it makes really sense to support both ways, no.
(Think of the complaints about the two syntax for expression languages.)
--
Reinhard
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> Leszek Gawron wrote:
>
>> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>>
>>> But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a
>>> discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a
>>> conference) and so we should support it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't agree more.
>>
>>
>> What would you do then if you started simple (with attributes) and
>> found out after a while (when the template is already quite big) that
>> you need a tag syntax in some places?
>>
>
> Aren't they completly equivalent?
Yes they are (will/would be). Thing is you do not want them to coexist
in a single template.
--
Leszek Gawron lgawron@mobilebox.pl
Project Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
>> But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a
>> discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a
>> conference) and so we should support it.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't agree more.
>
> What would you do then if you started simple (with attributes) and found
> out after a while (when the template is already quite big) that you need
> a tag syntax in some places?
>
Aren't they completly equivalent?
--
Reinhard
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
>> But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a
>> discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a
>> conference) and so we should support it.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't agree more.
>
> What would you do then if you started simple (with attributes) and found
> out after a while (when the template is already quite big) that you need
> a tag syntax in some places?
You come back here and ask for that feature.
Clean design rule #1: avoid YAGNI.
--
Stefano.
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a
> discussion about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a
> conference) and so we should support it.
>
>>
>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>
>
> Can't agree more.
What would you do then if you started simple (with attributes) and found
out after a while (when the template is already quite big) that you need
a tag syntax in some places?
--
Leszek Gawron lgawron@mobilebox.pl
Project Manager MobileBox sp. z o.o.
+48 (61) 855 06 67 http://www.mobilebox.pl
mobile: +48 (501) 720 812 fax: +48 (61) 853 29 65
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>>> I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of
>>> Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
>>
>>
>> The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find it
>> awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we have
>> a user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot
>> change dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the
>> forseable future so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
>>
>> Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before
>> someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax,
>> namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they need
>> the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand their
>> own best ;)
>
>
> I know you are looking at me :-) but interestingly enough, my FS alarm
> didn't go off.
>
> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes, one
> that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
Yes, I think we need both ways. *I* prefer the element style because for me
expresions like
<p
do="let(x=/a/long/path/from/the/root;if(x);content(x/txt);attributes(class=x/class)">
Ex Text
</p>
are close to be unreadable - I have the feeling of looking at a regular
expression (and this is _not_ a good feeling)
But the Dreamweaver usecase is a valid one (It was me who started a discussion
about this in May after attenting a Tapestry seminar at a conference) and so we
should support it.
>
> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
Can't agree more.
--
Reinhard
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Glen Ezkovich <gl...@hard-bop.com>.
On Dec 5, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Glen Ezkovich wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>>> Your alarm might have been desensitized by our continuos stream of
>>> FS ;) Actually it would be boring if you were easy to predict.
>>>
>>>> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes,
>>>> one that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
>>>
>>>
>>> So do I.
>>>
>>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>> Yes, thats why they should be in separate components. Pick your
>> poison. You know over time that one language will evolve past the
>> other. Having to maintain equivalence is a burden not needed. As I've
>> stated before picking the language should be a compile time decision.
>
> -1, that would make it impossible to use the two syntaxes in different
> parts of the site and there is no need to restrict that since it's
> perfectly valid that some parts of the templates will be edited by
> some people and some others by some others, with different skills.
Why? Just to be clear, I meant Java compile time. Use different
generators and transformers for each language. If you generate using
one, there is no reason to have to stick to the same language in the
transformation. Same goes for multiple transformations. I don't see the
need to use the same language in every step of a pipeline. The idea is
to provide as much flexibility as possible while constraining the use
of multiple languages in a single template.
Glen Ezkovich
HardBop Consulting
glen at hard-bop.com
http://www.hard-bop.com
A Proverb for Paranoids:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to
worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Glen Ezkovich wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> Your alarm might have been desensitized by our continuos stream of FS
>> ;) Actually it would be boring if you were easy to predict.
>>
>>> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes,
>>> one that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
>>
>>
>> So do I.
>>
>>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>
>
> Yes, thats why they should be in separate components. Pick your poison.
> You know over time that one language will evolve past the other. Having
> to maintain equivalence is a burden not needed. As I've stated before
> picking the language should be a compile time decision.
-1, that would make it impossible to use the two syntaxes in different
parts of the site and there is no need to restrict that since it's
perfectly valid that some parts of the templates will be edited by some
people and some others by some others, with different skills.
--
Stefano.
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Glen Ezkovich <ge...@mac.com>.
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Your alarm might have been desensitized by our continuos stream of FS
> ;) Actually it would be boring if you were easy to predict.
>
>> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes,
>> one that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
>
> So do I.
>
>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
Yes, thats why they should be in separate components. Pick your poison.
You know over time that one language will evolve past the other. Having
to maintain equivalence is a burden not needed. As I've stated before
picking the language should be a compile time decision.
Glen Ezkovich
HardBop Consulting
glen at hard-bop.com
http://www.hard-bop.com
A Proverb for Paranoids:
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to
worry about answers."
- Thomas Pynchon Gravity's Rainbow
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>>
>>>> I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of
>>>> Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
>>>
>>>
>>> The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find
>>> it awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we
>>> have a user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot
>>> change dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the
>>> forseable future so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
>>>
>>> Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before
>>> someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax,
>>> namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they
>>> need the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand
>>> their own best ;)
>>
>>
>> I know you are looking at me :-) but interestingly enough, my FS alarm
>> didn't go off.
>
> Your alarm might have been desensitized by our continuos stream of FS ;)
no, well, FS is triggered when a solution is proposed for a problem that
has not been mentioned but it makes sense from a "completeness" point of
view. Here, things are different since all sort of problems and
requirements were put on the table and in order to make everybody happy
the compromise has to be rather flexible.
The problem I have is never how flexible (otherwise, cocoon wouldn't be
here, right?) is "how more flexible than needed".
> Actually it would be boring if you were easy to predict.
Not only that, I would be useless. My only contributions to this project
are basically to scream "FS!!!" once and a while :-)
>> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes, one
>> that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
>
> So do I.
>
>> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
>
> How did you know that I was going to propose that?
ehm, I can spot people that design by constrain vs. those that design by
symmetry. The second are the one I watch more closely because those are
the one more likely to incurr in FS.
> And teling about my
> idea about how to make the choice of tag language compiler and
> implementation language triggered on each template tag is no idea any
> more, I guess ;)
I should make T-shirts with YAGNI written on the front and on the back
for some of you people ;-)
--
Stefano.
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>>> I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of
>>> Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
>>
>> The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find it
>> awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we have
>> a user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot
>> change dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the
>> forseable future so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
>>
>> Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before
>> someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax,
>> namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they need
>> the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand their
>> own best ;)
>
> I know you are looking at me :-) but interestingly enough, my FS alarm
> didn't go off.
Your alarm might have been desensitized by our continuos stream of FS ;)
Actually it would be boring if you were easy to predict.
> I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes, one
> that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
So do I.
> Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
How did you know that I was going to propose that? And teling about my
idea about how to make the choice of tag language compiler and
implementation language triggered on each template tag is no idea any
more, I guess ;)
/Daniel
Re: [RT] Attribute Driven Templates
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>> I like this idea very much. It would be a shame if the quirks of
>> Dreamweaver should force everyone to use an awkward syntax.
>
> The attribute driven synatax is new to me so I don't know if I find it
> awkward or not, I'll need to see some larger examples. Anyway, we have a
> user community (and our own webbaps) to think about, we cannot change
> dirrection at every whim. We must support JXTG for the forseable future
> so I would prefer if we could allow both syntaxes.
>
> Now, it will be interesting to see how long time it will take before
> someone explains that: this is FS we only need to support one syntax,
> namely the obviously optimal one, and those who believe that they need
> the other one are generally less knowing and doesn't understand their
> own best ;)
I know you are looking at me :-) but interestingly enough, my FS alarm
didn't go off.
I really think that it makes sense to have two different syntaxes, one
that uses elements and another one that uses attributes.
Now, having them cohexist in the page smells like FS, though ;-)
--
Stefano.