From: Bauduin Raphael <rb@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T08:01:52+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

gabriele renzi wrote:
> il Mon, 26 Jul 2004 03:48:30 +0900, Florian Weber
> <csshsh@structbench.com> ha scritto::
> 
> 
>>>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 ;-)
>>
>>why shouldnt we have a real programming language in the template?
>>
>>what if the presentation logic in our template is very very complicated?
>>just moving the complicated presentation logic out of the template into
>>another part like a binding or a ruby class doesnt change anything. its
>>just a form of indirection..
>>
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing Raphael's point: he's not talking about 
> 
> <condition name='foo'>
>  <b>ok</b>
> </condition>
> 
> vs
> 
> %if foo
>  <b>ok</b>
> %end
> 
> He's saying that he does not want to have 'foo' referencing something
> real (i.e. the parameters passed to the page) cause that adds coupling
> beetween the view logic and the business logic.

You expressed my idea better than I did!  :-)
My concern is also that foo could become a lot of code which should not 
be in the template.

Raph


> 
>  He just prefers to have that level of indirection where he can have
> 'foo' as a placeholder for, say, a 'show=true' passed to the page or a
> Time.now==XMas_day or a sql query result. 
>  You don't like that level of indirection and it's ok (I think I
> agree), but it's not really a question of presentation logic in
> template languages or in real programming languages.
> 
>