I wouldn't think it would be too terrible to get it to a point where
the actual template engine isn't much of a concern. Really it's how
do I take these Java Objects I've built up and transform them into
Java Mail / iText / jxl / etc am I right? This seems like a much
bigger problem to tackle than which template engine we use.
Unfortunately the template engine is seeming to drive the backend
transformation process :(
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:00, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 24 May 2010, at 16:47, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> 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.
So far I've heard one person say this. I've heard 10-100s say they really like
using JSF.
>
> 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.
Right now, JSF is the key thing to get implemented.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
>
http://ocpsoft.com
>
http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
--
Jason Porter
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: