From: Raphael Bauduin <raphael.bauduin@...>
Date: 2004-07-26T19:56:56+09:00
Subject: Re: rubyonrails and cgikit comparison

Florian Weber wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> i guess it all depends on what you prefer. the business data and the
> view will always be coupled more or less. if you like the abstraction
> of having some mediator/binding/etc or wanna do it directly..
> 
> the question is though: if the person who does the templates is the
> same person who does the rest of the (ruby) coding, what do you gain
> by the indirection of bindings/etc?
> 

When I work with a designer, I design a _very_ basic template, 
and let the designer do the layout and all the work on the template. 
And the designer doesn't have to deal with values coming from my code, he 
doesn't care, and shouldn't. 

So whatever I code, I won't break his layout. And whatever he does on the template, 
he won't break the code. Very reassuring in both ways!

And this could help debugging too, as if my text doesn't appear in red after he changed
the template, I know it's not because he accidentally erased the condition as it is not
in the template.

Raph


> 
> 
> 
> 
>