From: Bauduin Raphael <rb@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T07:57:28+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

Florian Weber wrote:

[snip]

> 
> <a href="foo" style="color: <%= (@some_stuff > 3) ? 'red' : 'black' 
> %>">foo</a>
> 
> how would you do this in xml?

My opinion:
-I would work with css
-The designer should not be concerned on the conditions to have one or 
the other color. He designs a red class, and a black, and the code 
determines which is used.

ex:
#template
<cgikit name="mylink"/>

#binding
mylink : CKHyperlink
{
   href="foo"
   class = link_class
}


#ruby code

#this file contains REDLIMIT value used throughout the appplitation
require "myparameters"

if @some_stuff < REDLIMIT
   @link_class = "redcss"
else
   @link_class = "blackcss"


And you have the benefit that you can use parameters like REDLIMIT 
defined in a file required in the code, and used through the whole 
application (though I guess the same applies to Rails if you require the
file in the component's code).

 From our discussion, it seems you prefer to have a bit of code in the 
template, but I prefer to have a bit of presentation logic in the code.
My fear it that the code in the template could become too important.

I also think it's much easier for a programmer to give a certain class 
attribute to an element, based on conditions in his code, than for a 
designer to enter the conditions to use a class or another. Giving a css 
class doesn't get you inside the css, working with variables in the 
template gets you inside the code.



Raph






> 
> 
>>> - rails is pragmatic. it makes simple things simple, and hard
>>> things possible (yes! i bet you never heard this sentence
>>> before ; ) but with rails its totally true. if you believe in components
>>> in the view, its possible to add that..
>>
>>
>> I don't care if it makes simple things simple. In the company I work
>> for, we use WebObjects for complicated applications and simple Ruby
>> FastCGI scripts for simple ones. For simple things you don't need a MVC
>> framework, you can print the HTML code directly.
> 
> 
> its not like there are only two existing types of app: simple and 
> complicated
> ones.. there are things in between..
> 
> 
>>> basically you really start to appreciate that you dont have to
>>> write tons of config files for everything. cgikit could also do that.
>>> it would be so much nicer if there would be some name specifications
>>> for your component class. like naming methods which return attributes
>>> in a special way. then you could get rid of the whole binding file. (i
>>> might be wrong, since i just quickly browsed the docs =)
>>
>>
>> Yes, and then you would encounter the situation, when you REALLY can't
>> follow this convention (the same goes for O/R mapping frameworks and
>> mapping SQL columns to attributes of the same name - think about "ID"
>> and what "id" attribute is used for in Ruby :) and you are stuck. I
>> really like the freedom of cgikit-like frameworks.
> 
> 
> personally i prefer to be forced to keep such limitations in mind and
> use something different than 'id', but not being forced tell the lib
> how to map every column to a attribute..
> 
> plus im pretty sure that it wouldnt be hard to add something to 
> activerecord
> which allows you to declare names for such exceptional attributes 
> specifically..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>