[seam-dev] Let me know what you need for a first stab at the PDF/Mail port from Seam 2

Mon May 24 14:40:36 EDT 2010

On 24 May 2010, at 19:06, Gavin King wrote:

> And, of course, this is why facelets is so appropriate for the task:
> facelets was designed not for text rendering, but for object graph
> construction. JSP and Velocity just render text.

Right, and I believe that it is pretty natural to use. I've heard many people say they really like the simplicity/power of using facelets to template their email, and the consistency with writing pages for the web.

What I always hear though is that people would like to use this outside of a web request (e.g. as part of a batch process or in an MDB). So, I suggest we return to this topic.

> 
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just don't buy this. On the contrary, the Seam mail functionality is
>> NOT just rendering a bit of text, which is what I tried to explain,
>> but nobody seems to be "getting". The template actually builds an
>> object, with to/from addresses, a subject line, headers, etc.
>> 
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Jason Porter <lightguard.jp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?

Not quite sure what "these Java Objects" refers to, but with Facelets it can directly create the JavaMail objects or iText objects as part of the render, there is no need for this transform stage you describe.

>>>  This seems like a much
>>> bigger problem to tackle than which template engine we use.

Not really. If you use JSF/facelets, this "transform problem" goes away, and is replaced with the problem of how to make JSF work outside a web request.

>>> Unfortunately the template engine is seeming to drive the backend
>>> transformation process :(

Well, yes, of course we are taking advantage of the facilities that the templating engine we have offers. To not do so would be madness (aka reinventing the wheel).

>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:00, Pete Muir <pmuir at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> seam-dev mailing list
>>>>> seam-dev at 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 at 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: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king at gmail.com
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>> http://hibernate.org
>> http://seamframework.org
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gavin King
> gavin.king at gmail.com
> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
> http://hibernate.org
> http://seamframework.org