Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies. | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Well, and that's why I said this only applies to complex information systems. This model fits very well for small applications that a designer will create the HTML for each page. For a bigger application, this starts to be a problem for maintainance of the software, and reduces the re-usability of the code. BTW, the "component" model can be easy to designers, it's just a matter of creating a template file for each component, and allowing an entire form to be designed in a template, *BUT* instead of defining the HTML of each component, calling the desired component's render method, which would use a separated template and a separated render code, which would enable re-use and encapsulation of complex widgets (like the mentioned datetime field). The first version of Oak doesn't use templates, really. But the model do allows me of using in the second version, which I will. And... I'm not complaining about the naming, I just wanted to clarify that the Web implementations of MVC are not quite MVC, and that it would be nice if it was. In reply to Re^2: Why I dislike the MVC implementations in Web
by ruoso
|
|