On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Tobias Marx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there! > > Here is my list of Tapestry5 suggestions: > > > Tapestry5 Suggestions: > > 1. User .tpl instead of .tml. This way there is also no problem with syntax > highlighting in most editors. > We already voted a while back to change the templates from .html to .tml, so there would be no conflicts with other file extensions, and you can associate the editor for Tapestry templates vs static html. I think there was another, more professional sounding reason, but that's the one that mattered to me. It's up to you to make the file associations work in your IDE, I see no reason to change it again unless you are Rob Smeets. ;-) 2. Make those templates compatible with SSI templates. > > This is because most HTMLers will slice PSD files to SSI templates. > This way, they could directly be used in a Tapestry project If the SSI code that is generated is valid XML, it may make it easy to wrap with a T5 dtd and call it done. It seems that T5 goes above and beyond what SSI can do. You would want to change all absolute or relative links to media in the SSI code to use a T5 calculated path to the Asset (done by Injecting the asset in the page/component class). You could make it work with the links as is, it will just be fragile like a 1990's web page. Note that any repeated use of the SSI (which is it's strength) is handled by making that collection of items a component, which can then be added to any page. If enough people use it, it may meet HLS's requirement of "Developers First". > > > 3. Make the Layout component the default component that is always used if > not otherwise specified. > This saves 2 lines of code in all page templates. IMHO, It doesn't save any lines, and just makes more majic for little benefit. The line that lists your DTD can be used to include your layout or border, and I have multiple border type components for different sets of pages. Having one default is just an extra caveat for newcomers. > > > 4. Allow the use of templates without having to have a corresponding Java > class for it. > Otherwise you to generate tons of "stupid" empty Java classes. This might be useful, say if you have a bunch of help pages or static text. The converse is true--Java classes don't need a corresponding tml in order to be useful. If the Loom plugin could be modified to auto create the dummy class for you, then that would help speed things up. One caveat is that html files don't have the naming restrictions that Java classes do. For now I'm happy having the 1kB .class files. I usually end up injecting images or css anyway. > > > > > What do you think? > > Thanks! > > Toby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
