From: Bauduin Raphael <rb@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T02:41:53+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

Florian Weber wrote:
>> 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"}  %>
> 

But if you need several times the same link in a page, don't you put all 
this several times in the template? What if "var2" => "val2" should be 
replaced by "var2" => "val3" for each link? Do you edit each <%= link_to 
.... %> ?



> 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?
> 

When you use a variable you need to know the way to access it too.... 
I'm afraid I still don't get your point.


>>> 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..

I thought you were afraid of all side technologies of XML. Of course if 
you can't see any xml combined with (x)html, there's no point to argue.....

Raph





> 
> 
>