Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact taglibs-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list taglibs-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 54999 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 22:07:47 -0000 Received: from galen.earthdome.org (HELO zathras.earthdome.org) (206.152.117.245) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Dec 2000 22:07:47 -0000 Received: from voyager.apg.more.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zathras.earthdome.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA36621 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:08:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from glenn@voyager.apg.more.net) Sender: glenn@zathras.earthdome.org Message-ID: <3A427F4A.111621D9@voyager.apg.more.net> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:08:10 -0600 From: Glenn Nielsen X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: taglibs-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: taglib roadmap and practices References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N "Joseph B. Ottinger" wrote: > > I just put my roadmap back online, after quite some time. It doesn't > address some critical issues that I've noticed coming up, but I'll do that > soon. This does NOT cover everything that jakarta does, although I plan to > skip through the docs of the jakarta taglib as well, pulling out what I > think is useful; it's also fundamentally light on content. (This will > change.) > > The primary point here is to kickstart the JSR-052 group and hopefully get > some real discussion going in terms of "what do we really want to be a > standard?" instead of a simple needs-response model that we have right > now. A needs-response model works, no doubt, but it also is limited to > what peoples' visions are - someone might not think of a given way to use > something, without a standard providing practices and possibilities (and > limits.) For example, a JMS taglib would be nice... but how would it > map? Sending a message makes sense, but setting a JSP page up as a > subscriber (provided you don't block) doesn't make sense... and, honestly, > even if you DO block, it doesn't make much sense. > > I'd also like to see a practices model set up, where attributes' use-cases > are clearly defined (i.e., "Should content be an attribute? Let's all say > no." "Should configuration be an attribute? Let's say yes... and remember > that we can't use taglibs to generate configuration information if we DO > say yes.") > > The previous parenthetical brings up an interesting point, to me: Let's > pretend we have an SMTP tag, , which allows a resource to be > used to configure the SMTP server. > > smtp-server="mail.epesh.com" > user="joeo" > password="blankman" > to="taglibs-dev@jakarta.apache.org" > subject="woohoo!"> > This is a test. > > > Now, this is all well and good... but it's tightly coupled with MY > application. If you take a page that uses this tag, you'll have to modify > the page in order for it to work. Let's make it more generic: > > smtp-server="<%= smtpServer %>" > ...> > > This is nicer, but the use of <%= %> looks ugly... especially when you > consider that we MIGHT ALSO have a tag like this: > > > > (As an aside: amazingly, we DO have this tag in jakarta, sans the > default information.) > > We can't use this, though, because you can't nest tags like this. However, > if we change the mail tag: > > > > ... > > > We have a easily transported set of tags and attributes, and we avoid > scripting and internal variable extraction... we avoid Java, in other > words, which isn't such a bad thing. > I agree with the above tag design philosophy for the current JSP spec. And this is how I tried to design the taglibs I have written (and why my TLD files have each tag configured with false. If an attribute is something that would be set dynamically in a JSP page I feel it should have a corresponding tag that sets the value using the tags body content. The is too limiting, it doesn't allow you to set a property dynamically using body content. This brings up the whole issue of how to pass data between tags seamlessly. Passing property values using a tags body content involves alot of overhead. Other methods require introspection and reflection which adds overhead. There doesn't seem to be a good solution right now that will allow different tag sets to share data seamlessly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Nielsen glenn@more.net | /* Spelin donut madder | MOREnet System Programming | * if iz ina coment. | Missouri Research and Education Network | */ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------