From: Florian Weber <csshsh@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T02:12:24+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

> I have to admit that in using cgikit I didn't experience the binding 
> file as overhead. I find it really practical that, once my template is 
> ok, I don't ever have to go back to it if I want to change something 
> in my code. What do you mean by running into problems sooner or later?

with running into problems sooner or later i meant that sooner or later 
it
will get really annoying that you only have two choices: use xml to do
something very programming language like or to write components for
every tiny little special thing..


> One advantage I can see with the binding is that you can reuse your 
> element in different places in the same pages, and if you change the 
> binding definition, the changes are applied to all occurences in the 
> page. For example a link.
>
> #html
> <!-- html header -->
> <cgikit name="Link">
> <!-- HTML -->
> <!-- html footer -->
> <cgikit name="Link">
>
> #binding
>
> Link : CKHyperlink
> {
>   href = "http://www.destpage.net";
>   string = "Ruby Homepage";
>   query =  get_vars;
> }
>
> #ruby code
>   @get_vars = [ { "var1" => "val1"} , {"var2" => "val2"} ]
>
> This results in :
> <a href="http://www.destpage.net?var1=val1&var2=val2">Ruby Homepage</a>
>
> in rails, I guess you can do it like
>
> <a href="<%=myurlbuiltwithgetvars%>"><%=linktitle%></a>
>
> But now, what it you forgot to set an attribute for it? Liek the css 
> class to use?
> With cgikit, I just add this in the binding:
>
>  class="mycssclass";
>
> and it's applied everywhare.
>
> This adds the attribute to all instances. In rails I guess you have to 
> edit all instances of the link. This is one example of why I 
> personally prefer the cgikit way.
>
>
> In rails, from my understandings, you would have to edit all the link 
> instances, which would be less DRY oriented ;-)
>
> (Correct me if there's a better way to do it in rails,I'm interested 
> to know)

totally simple with rails. you can just write a little helper method 
for for links.
david already did some nice stuff like this to allow for example:

<%= link_to "some link", :action => "foo", :params => { "var1" => 
"val1", "var2" => "val2"}  %>

http://localhost/pages/foo?var1=val1&var2=val2

for sure you can also pass additional html options to the link_to 
helper method..

the thing you described earlier could be easily done with a little 
helper method
also.. same thing, just less indirection..



>
>> with cgikit for example you must know whats going on below the 
>> template, how
>> would you know otherwise which properties you can use for the 
>> repetition item, how
>> its named, etc?
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. You don't specify the 
> repetition item in the template, so no need to know it to design the 
> template. You need it of course for the binding.

well, but you need to know the the properties of the items when you 
wanna
display them on the page, no?

>> for simple views something like xml might work okay. but for more 
>> complex stuff
>> it becomes very tricky, sometimes even impossible. you need something 
>> like
>> a 'programming language'. 
>> http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/UseOfXml.html
>
> I must admit I haven't build a very complex  website with cgikit 
> (yet?), but from my experience in building a bigger site, I didn't see 
> anything blocking in cgikit. To the contrary, I found it very clear 
> and structured. You don't build your website in xml, you have a 
> template that is HTML with <cgikit> tags that are replaced by html.

to me the cgikit templates look pretty much like (x)html + xml..