If what I'm hearing is correct, people aren't so much concerned with using
JSF as a templating language, but they are concerned with having "some kind"
of templating, and the ability to access data from the current request.
If that's the case, then it would be incredibly easy to plug in Velocity or
another templating system and still provide this functionality. Much easier
I believe, in fact, than sledgehammering JSF into a non-servlet-like
invocation environment.
I personally think we should start with a different templating system (since
Seam is supposed to be view-layer agnostic anyway.) But I also think that
having parallel prototyping going on is a good thing, we can use everyone's
combined experiences with the prototypes to come up with a truly decoupled
and user-centric system.
My big question is... JSF templating is nice, but... what do people truly
need?
Thoughts?
--Lincoln
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Nikolay,
I think it would help people understand your proposal better if you gave an
example of your proposed syntax using another templating engine. Perhaps
take one of the example emails from Seam2 and rewrite it...
On 24 May 2010, at 05:01, Nikolay Elenkov wrote:
> On 2010/05/24 12:46, Gavin King wrote:
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Nikolay Elenkov <nick(a)sarion.co.jp>
wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how much better JSF2 is at this, but is it really a good
idea to
>>> use JSF for the mail module? Wouldn't it be better to use a real
templating
>>> engine (like Velocity) and not depend on JSF?
>>
>> Huh?! What on earth does velocity have that makes it a "real"
>> templating engine that facelets does not have? I have used both, and I
>> found velocity far, far poorer in both syntax and semantics.
>
> OK, bad wording on my part. The point was not be dependent on JSF. I am
not
> saying that Velocity is better. But it does allow you to have template
that
> are not XML files.
>
>>
>>> Plus it would be easier
>>> to edit templates if they are not xhtml files, but simple text files.
>>
>> Why? Cos XML files are not text files? Cos #foo #end is easier to edit
>> than <foo></end>? I don't see how what you just wrote can
possibly be
>> true.
>
> Yes, it is. Especially if you are not a developer. You can just tell
people:
> 'don't touch this things starting with #, otherwise just edit in
notepad'.
>
>>
>>> The usual
>>> use case for mail templating is to provide files your users can edit if
they
>>> want to customize how email looks like. And you can't really expect
them to
>>> understand xhtml.
>>
>> They are XML files. I can't imagine a Java developer who doesn't know
>> XML. I do know several Java developers who find velocity syntax
>> nausea-inducing. I'm one of them.
>>
>
> Again, this is not about pro-Velocity, anit-Faceltes. The people that
would have
> to edit templates are *users*, not *Java developers*. If you have to call
up
> your developers just to change the email template, you have failed at
usability.
>
>> Please try actually reading the Seam mail documentation:
>>
>>
http://docs.jboss.com/seam/1.1.5.GA/reference/en/html/mail.html
>
> I have. I've also been thorough the source, tried to use it and then gave
up.
>
>> I don't see how most of the functionality could be achieved in
>> velocity, eg. <m:from>, <m:to>, <m:subject>,
<m:header>.
>>
>
> s/velocity/any templating engine you might like/g. I am repeating myself
here,
> but you cannot reallisticaly expect users to mess around with <m:header>
and not
> break the system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev