Hey Toby, > I'm not sure I like the idea of a framework FORCING me to do something
I agree with the sentiment, but in this case isn't it misplaced? I suppose you are forced to consider which binding implementation to use, but that feels more like flexibility. Tapestry should make integrating and implementing new bindings really easy. Plugging a module into your project with those bindings should be easy too. We have OGNL, EL, juel, jexl, and others... is there a need for tapestry to implement this again? > In my experience T4 and 5 have proved to be very flexible, more so than JSF > etc. so I'm surprised that > there isn't some primitive form of EL in the TML. There is, it's just VERY primitive. :) I don't think building the kitchen sink into the framework makes it more flexible. Being able to add it on later, if you need it is flexible, and also what we have now (the OGNL binding referred to earlier in this thread) > Anyway, like I said, just one user's opinion! Yep, it's good to discuss stuff. Hopefully it'll be useful for someone down the road... Josh On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Toby Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I like the idea of a framework FORCING me to do something, IMHO > poorly structured code should be prevented by coding standards and peer > reviews, not a rigid framework. Just moving the logic from a JSP/Template to > a Java class doesn't necessarily mean it's cleaner. Sometimes it is actually > clearer to put some logic in the template. > > In my experience T4 and 5 have proved to be very flexible, more so than JSF > etc. so I'm surprised that there isn't some primitive form of EL in the TML. > > Anyway, like I said, just one user's opinion! > > Toby > -- -- TheDailyTube.com. Sign up and get the best new videos on the internet delivered fresh to your inbox. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
