Hi Igor. In addition to the $remove$ suggestion from Jonathan, I'd like to point out that conversion from your designer's html to a Tapestry template is much simplified when compared to JSP etc. In many cases, but not all, the result (including components) are still editable by the designer.
However, this point is not a good reason to choose or dismiss Tapestry, nor is it Tapestry's "primary selling point". Cheers, Nick. Lobanov Igor wrote:
Dear community, Could you tell me what are benefits of using "pure HTML" approach to creating templates for your pages? As I understand it is one of primary selling points of Tapestry framework. However I failed to find any justification for this approach other that you can give it to your HTML designer even after your placed some components on it. For me this argument is relevan only for simple applications, because: 1) decent application uses tons of both custom and standard components, which make bare page template look very different compared to what it will look like when all components are rendered 2) many templates contain sections which are mutually exclusive when application page is rendered, but will be simultaneously visible on a bare template (consider "No data to display" warning instead of grid control) Considering all of these, decision to use "pure HTML" templates looks like completely arbitrary and the matter of taste of Mr. Howard Lewis Ship. However I suppose I missed an important point here, so I would be very grateful if somebody shed light on this issue for me. Thanks in advance! -- Igor Lobanov --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
