--Chris
On Jan 27, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Patrick Casey wrote:
You sometimes do have to change layout on a page by page layout whenyou do i18n stuff, especially if some of the languages you're translating into are significantly more verbose than English (<cough> german <cough>).So a nice little set of widgets that do, say: Label1 text1 Label2 text2 Might not fit if the german translation of label is InevitableReallyLongGermanAlliterativeLabel text1 FiendishlyShortForGerman test2 If you're using pretty much *any* fixed size elements on your page,you're gonna have to tweak the sizing for most foreign languages. If you've managed to survive with only proportionate sizing e.g. "width="30%" then you're all right, but the moment you do width="120px" you've bought yourselfproblems in the localization field. --- Pat-----Original Message----- From: Chris Conrad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:05 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: tapestry not really component based? On Jan 27, 2006, at 11:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Or what about i18n....you may need to change the layout of your web page based on the language selected. It would be really nice to have some kind of layout manager to dynamically alter the layout of the page. Having multiple pages, each with it's own layout, is heavy a solution and presents ugly maintenance issues.You shouldn't be doing your layout on a page by page basis anyway, you should be using some kind of Border component (as described in Tapestry in Action). Components can have localized templates too, so changing the layout of a page on a per locale basis is as simple as writing a new Border component template. Between that and using message catalogs instead of raw text in pages/components you can have totally different layouts without needing to modify the pages at all. I think the real problem with Tapestry is that it has a fairly steep learning curve. But once you know it you can create very highly dynamic pages without needing to mess around with instantiating components in Java. So the question is, how to make the learning curve less steep. Given what I've seen with using Tapestry 4 so far, I'm pretty convinced Howard understands the learning curve issue and is making definite progress. The one thing I would like to see addressed, as others have mentioned, is the whole problem with getting access to what's rendered inside a For component. But that's not something I'veneeded to deal with very often, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.--Chris"Patrick Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/27/2006 10:28 AM Please respond to "Tapestry users" <tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org> To "'Tapestry users'" <tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org> cc Subject RE: tapestry not really component based? I don't necessarily buy the slippery slope argument here. One might as well argue "well if we put listener functions in the page class that fire when users click links or buttons, the before you know it users are going toinsist on the full swing set, so we shouldn't do listener functions".Additionally, I have to point out that, if the users *do* want the full swing set (which I don't think they do; I know I don't, but it's ahypothetical), then why not give it to them, or at least as much as ispractical?Ultimately Howard's not doing this to satisfy his owndesire for theoretical perfection; he wants people to actually *use* the thing. Ifmaking it usable to the "average" programmer, if such a thing actuallyexists, means making compromises with architectural purity, then so be it. In any event, I've long since found workarounds for the whole "javacode can't create a component" thing, so this isn't near the top of mypersonal wish list. I do remember back though when I hadn't yet implemented those workarounds when it did, indeed, bother me.Perhaps those of us who know the framework relativelywell need to try to see things from the perspective of those who don't. Stuff which is second nature to us isn't to a newbie and, if this framework is to grow, it has to be obvious not only to the old hands, but *also* to the newbies. So if a large percentage of the new users find something confusing/awkward/weird, I think it is worth discussing, even if the more experience tapestry staff think's it's second nature. --- Pat-----Original Message----- From: Cliff Zhao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:13 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: tapestry not really component based?IMO, this is not about one dynamic component. If you open the door to introduce the dynamically created component, you introduce a chain of things. People will ask for everything equivalent to Swing, you willneedlayout components, ..., etc. It will make everything complicated. In the hype of ajax, I think that it's not a good idea to spend a lot of timetodevelop a server side "Swing". Anyway, I think that Tapestry has a goodinfrastructure, if you really like dynamic components, maybe you cancreate a subproject to create a DynamicPage service. just my two cents.-------------------------------------------------------------------- -To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user- [EMAIL PROTECTED]--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user- [EMAIL PROTECTED]--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
