Am Freitag, 13.12.02, um 23:31 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Christian
Gruber:
> I'm pretty sure I'm not comfortable with that. I do like the
> separation. We just need a tool to handle the different parts.
>
> They are different in meaning. Static binding, run-time
> pre-configuration, view, and controller (the .java).
It simply depends on what you want to do: in case you want to create a
normal, but web-enabled app, then you are correct. The separation is
useful.
On the other hand, if you are creating "web-sites" that use WO as yet
another app server, then the separation is a terrible PITA, because you
can't really give the stuff over to your design folks for even minor
text or UI edits. It simply takes oo much time to make them comfortable
with it.
Design and usablitity (javascript) is a great concern there and the .wo
stuff merges *very* poorly with it.
Cheers, Anjo
> Cg.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anjo Krank [mailto:anjo.kran..-online.de]
>
> Another thing I thought about was to create a template parser that will
> do away with the unnerving .wo wrapper and the seperation of .wod, .woo
> and .html and create only one HTML file with a syntax like <table
> id=someName width=someBinding webobjects=SomeTableClass> and
> <webobjects:SomeCustomClass id=someOtherName > to better integrate into
> existing tools like DreamWeaver. However, this would make development
> even more proprietary than it is now even if it would be easy to write
> a conversion script for all the existing elements.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 18:36:32 EST