Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 63137 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 14:29:49 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 14:29:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 58656 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2003 14:29:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 58622 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2003 14:29:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 58602 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 14:29:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sati.virbus.de) (145.253.246.81) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 14:29:40 -0000 Received: from sati.virbus.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8330F166A62 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:29:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from virbus.de (saraswati.virbus.de [212.144.5.199]) by sati.virbus.de (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5DD9A1669A6 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:29:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3FBA2CD4.40700@virbus.de> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:29:40 +0100 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: XSP "official" position References: <3FB97CAB.5080401@apache.org> <3FBA1E5C.1090802@vafer.org> <3FBA2554.8060507@virbus.de> <3FBA2ABA.7000502@vafer.org> In-Reply-To: <3FBA2ABA.7000502@vafer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Torsten Curdt wrote: >>> If you wanna compare you need to compare Flow vs. Actions and XSP vs. >>> Transformers (or other server pages / templating approaches). >> >> >> >> The discussion really takes a strange way when comparing these both >> concepts. > > > ...not any stranger than comparing Flow vs. XSP ;) Flow vs. XSP was actually what I meant. >> IMO it's obvious: the mixture of coding languages (Java + XML) and the >> mixture of abstraction levels. But this abstraction does not make the >> coding easier, you have to know the implementation details to work >> around all possible mistakes: How often it is suggested to have a look >> at the generated Java files! In general we need a XML only XSP (i.e. >> without any Java written by hand) with minimum of flow support: >> >> , , etc. > > > ...because it should only be used as view. agreed > >> Yes, afterwards it's very similar to XSLT or other template languages >> as JXTemplate. >> >> The power of XSP is not XSP itself, but the further abstraction levels >> as esql as Leszek pointed out. This would make an XML only XSP to a >> really powerful template language in contrary to a programming >> language with nasty syntax at the moment. > > > ...well, totally agree. But that's only a question how it used - isn't > it? XSP leaves room for heavy abuse! I guess that's the major problems. > ...plus that debugging is a pain :) Exactly, we must do it impossible to abuse it :-) Going towards an XML only template language would also allow to have an interpreter instead of compiling transformed java files. -- System Development VIRBUS AG Fon +49(0)341-979-7419 Fax +49(0)341-979-7409 joerg.heinicke@virbus.de www.virbus.de