On Friday, Nov 22, 2002, at 01:06 Asia/Shanghai, David H. Young wrote:
Chris,
you bring out my number one concern... xmlc was created (during
Lutris' consulting days) as an alternative strategy to "templating"
approaches like jsp and jolt/jddi. We learned a lot from building
jolt (before jsp was available) and using it in an early consulting
gig at FedEx...
The target for xmlc was the interaction between html designers and
java developers. It's obvious that you and others are taking
advantage of xmlc's features to simplify that relationship. Another
huge win was the ability to support multiple presentation types (wml,
html, xml, svg, and even flash/xml). I'm concerned about a bottom-up
approach to re-thinking XMLC's internals might override what xmlc is
all about and what makes it a worthy alternative to jsp.
I gotta stop this before it spread too far. I haven't broken anything
in XMLC yet. ;)
The thread started as my rant during these midnight hacking. The new
reloading codes done by Richard opens some interesting possibilities. I
have extended it to not only reload updated existing HTML pages but
also load new HTML pages that added to the system after deployment.
That got me to think about, well, XMLC 3.0 and behind. XMLC is a fairly
complex package in its own right and support a lot of features. I am
trying to figure out which features are important.
My recommendation to David, Richard and friends:
-> let's start a requirements document for xmlc 3.X and break it into
sections to deal with supportability/maintainability, developer,
device requirements and presentation designer requirements.
I agree. I will spend sometime to summarize this thread and get the
draft out after we get the 2.2 release.
-> let's then make an announcement on theserverside.com for comments
on the requirements document, indicating that we're look for input
from those that deal with designer/developer interface in web
application development. I think it would serve as a nice way to
resurrect a bit of curiosity about xmlc. I know the folks at that
site and they are dying for content... it's pretty bad when they're
featuring an interview with their own people.
| 