From: Bauduin Raphael <rb@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T03:16:53+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

Florian Weber wrote:
> 
>>> 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 .... %> ?
> 
> 
> also very simple. just create a little helper method. then you can do
> 
> <%= product_link({"var2" => "var3"}) %>
> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> its often said that some templating languages which dont use programming
> languages and have things like tags to define conditions, loops, etc are 
> great
> because designer/html-people can just use them easily and dont need to
> know a programming language..
> 
> however that totally ignores that those designers/html-people still need
> to know which variables/properties exists for the item they are working 
> on..
> 

Let's take a concrete example. I have developed a CKHTMLTable component, 
displaying database rows in a table. The designer can work on the 
template of this component to set it up, although this should mostly 
mean design a css.

When the component is used, there's no need to set it up anymore. Of 
course, the designer should know this component displays a table, and 
not a link. But that's the same in Rails if you work with components.

But I got your point, and if the programmer doesn't talk with the 
designer there could be a problem. But that's the downside of using 
components: the designer has to know what this component is.

> 
>>>>> 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.....
> 
> 
> not sure if i understand what you mean with that? could you explain 
> further, please..

Hmm, not sure the english I wrote is correct. I was just meaning that it 
could come down to you having different preferences than me.


> 
> im definally not afraid of xml though. xhtml is great and xml also. just 
> not for everything.
> especially not for tasks where a programming language would be just so 
> much easier
> and better.


That's just the point we disagree on. I don't think we should have
real programming in the template(like references to variables), some 
basic logic only. In short, I like the presence of the binding, you 
don't. That's ok with me ;-)

Anyway, thanks for this exchange of opinions.

Raph

> 
> 
> 
>