|We don't bite newbies here... much|
Comment onby gods
|on Feb 11, 2000 at 00:06 UTC||Need Help??|
I still don't think your getting it. All "push" style has done is moved the "pull" into your perl layer. Seamstress requires too much knowledge about the template. TT is closest to give true separation because you can give it unblessed, raw, unformatted data. Anything that is not passed as unblessed, raw unformatted data has violated the separation - but that doesn't make it bad - it just makes it not academic.
I don't think at this point that you will ever concede. I am somewhat saddened (but not that much) that you fail to see that Seamstress (and most likely all "push" systems) violate the separation of model and presentation in the exact opposite direction of "pull" systems.
Well - I really must get back to work and my non-academic template implementations.
Update - I think the problem here is when we are using the term "view." For me, the view is very nearly tied directly to the html/xml/text template with the TT or Template::Alloy object swapping in data that was prepared by the model and handed to the view by the controller. Your implementations of the view seem to include sections of Perl code that know what the template needs - and even more it knows what the template looks like, and then requests data from the model in the formats that the template needs - depending upon the model to get it into shape. This is where the argument comes in. TT models don't need to have Perl code as part of the "view" layer. Seamstress requires it. In the end we are arguing over borders which really is an inconsequential debate. Both models work equally well in the eyes of the end user (who never sees the code that generated the page). Both camps will be forever wrong in each others eyes. True separation is a decoy issue at best.
my @a=qw(random brilliant braindead); print $a[rand(@a)];
In reply to Re: Push templating strategy cannot violate separation