[Yanel-dev] Some criticism on Jelly

[Evaldas Taroza]

Michael Wechner wrote:
> Evaldas Taroza wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah, I agree with most of them. But what's the alternative?
> 
> 
> good question and this is why I meant that nobody should take it personal.
> 
> Still, as soon as I will have time I will give JRuby a try
> 
>> Yanel is evolving quite slowly, the beauty is usually sacrificed for a 
>> quicker (and dirtier) solutions... like Jelly templates.
>>
>> Since we have a lot of XML it would be the best to have the XML 
>> database behind Yarep. Then we could simply write XQuery scripts, 
>> which I think is difficult to criticize.
> 
> 
> to be honest I have no clue about XQuery, but isn't this comparing 
> oranges with apples?
Well you can see XQuery as a scripting language where you build up an 
XML document. So in that sense it can be used as any other 
scripting(templating) language. Moreover, XQuery is nice in other ways, 
because you don't script with xml tags, but you script with language 
constructs. E.g. with jelly you say <j:if test="${1<2}">bla</j:if> with 
XQuery you say if (1 < 2) then {<mytag/>} else {<yourtag/>}.

Moreover, XQuery is a recommendation... and we are parsing the DOM, 
searching for tags, etc.

Major XML databases also support easy updating of XML. XQJ is on the 
way. And we are parsing XML, changing DOM, writing it back to the file. 
That's insane unless the XML files are really really small.

> 
>>
>> eXist, for instance, has the built in cocoon support, which makes it 
>> already a content management system, where you can have templates, 
>> pipes of xslt etc.
> 
> 
> although I understand that there is a lot of value in this, I am afraid 
> that we loose abstraction which is more important to me in order to 
> exchange implementations.
I agree that it is very important to stay abstract. But it is also very 
important to give a good reference implementation. Otherwise one can end 
up with a lot of interfaces and a non attractive implementation.

A non attractive implementation may lead to the point that people don't 
trust the whole architecture. Therefore they might not even bother to 
give other implementations.

All in all, for me the architecture is not only about providing 
interfaces, but implementations as well.

Evaldas

> 
> Cheers
> 
> Michi
> 
>>
>> Evaldas
>>
>> Michael Wechner wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Please do not take the following link personal, but I think there is 
>>> some truth to
>>>
>>> http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2004/6/10/jelly-scripting-for-the-soulless
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Michi
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
+41 79 616 53 76
www.linkedin.com/in/taroza

Optaros - www.optaros.com