Re: [Bodington-developers] Plugin interface

[Jon M. <jo...@te...>]

I like dots and parentheses and you like angle brackets,
I say tomato and you say tomato,
Tomato, tomato, <, (),
Let's call the whole thing off.
;o)


Alistair Young wrote:

>> so you can call getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" ).include( request,  
>> response )
>
> but that's where we differ Jon. JSPs are designed to insulate page  
> developers from code like that. That's what taglibs are for. That's  
> why I suggested a new tag. That's why I don't want to go down the  
> servlet route. No-one else does these days to get the type of  
> functionality we want.
>
> In light of what Matthew's being working on, it'll be best to wait  
> and see what we can use of that to give us the functionality we need.
>
> Alistair
>
>
> On 23 Mar 2006, at 14:57, Jon Maber wrote:
>
>> Alistair Young wrote:
>>
>>>> You won't be going near Facility.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know Jon but I'll be going somewhere I don't want to go - half   
>>> hidden servlets - that's not what servlets are designed for.
>>
>>
>> It is one of the things that servlets were designed for see the  method;
>>
>>
>>    ServletContext.getNamedDispatcher(String name)
>>
>> (http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/javax/servlet/ 
>> ServletContext.html)
>>
>>>
>>>> I think it can be done without adding any new tag types to the   
>>>> template DTD
>>>
>>>
>>> and I think it can ... just different ways of looking at the  
>>> problem.  My view is influenced by JSPs/taglibs,your's by bod  
>>> internals.
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not thinking of Bod at all - 'including' is a standard  thing 
>> that servlets do.
>>
>>>
>>>> out.print( "<P>here's another 400 paragraphs of HTML</P>" );
>>>
>>>
>>> that's how bod works though!
>>
>>
>> It's not how bod templates work.
>>
>>> I don't think I'm getting anywhere now although it's been an   
>>> interesting ride getting there.
>>
>>
>> Just trying to help! I'm not going to say go ahead with your plugin  
>> tag (which I don't personally object to) because I'm not going to  be 
>> affected by the consequences - that's down to the other  developers 
>> to comment.  I'm just suggesting a method they can't  easily object 
>> to because it doesn't involve more that a line or two  of changes to 
>> the Bodington source code - to make the  ServletContext available to 
>> the template so you can call  getNamedDispatcher( "myModules" 
>> ).include( request, response ).  I  don't think that's a bodge or a 
>> workaround - it's basically the  same as what you're proposing but 
>> compliant with the servlet spec -  i.e. you could use it perfectly 
>> well outside of Bodington.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting  
>> language
>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the  live 
>> webcast
>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding  
>> territory!
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
>> cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bodington-developers mailing list
>> Bod...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting 
> language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live 
> webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding 
> territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>