Ian Bicking wrote:
>Yes, having just one way is better. Wouldn't actions be more useful
>during setup, though, as opposed to rendering? I.e., writeHTML (or the
>equivalent) should happen no matter what.
Yes, but I'm that setup maybe IS actions... but I suppose that there
will always be before-action stuff for awake.
And yes, there will always be writeHTML (see my earlier comment) but
rather than have a whole bunch of conditional tests, why not have
different write methods to followup each relevant action?
>I wouldn't necessarily want to enforce the logic/display separation --
>when I'm tweaking I often mix the two liberally, and then clean it up
>later once I know what I'm trying to do. But I think more could be done
>to encourage the separation.
Agreed; Force is bad. Encourage is good. Right now, I think it's too
hard to be really solid about OO.
>Well, Page isn't really that long, so I didn't feel it was a problem to
Well, sure, but that's because you made the decision that it was ok to
break from WebKit conventions. I doubt that everyone is comfy with that.
It's kindof like forking the project, but in a little way.
>Yes, awake() is there, but it's only a very loose guide for the
>structure. I'm also interested in getting something together where
>Cheetah (or for that matter, any template) can be plugged in easily. I
>think this would go along, because it involves separating action and
>code (written in Python) from display (written in Cheetah or somesuch).
As much as people like cheetah, I'd hate to see WebKit become dependent
on THREE languages: python, html, cheetah syntax... optional is better.
Personally, I don't have the stomach to learn a new template syntax...
whether XSLT, PSP or php or cheetah or jsp or whatever; I'll take
python, thanks. I know, I know, I'm being grouchy about this... and
ignorant, too, no doubt.
I DO think that there are some good ideas kicking around on this topic;
hopefully we can scare up something concrete. I'll look at your
Does Tavis' experimental stuff address any of this?