Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!news1.t-com.hr!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Askfor Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: java templating for HTML output Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:32:26 +0200 Organization: T-Com Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-0-228-65.adsl.net.t-com.hr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ls237.t-com.hr 1474867938 2866 78.0.228.65 (26 Sep 2016 05:32:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-com.hr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 05:32:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:35650 Daniel Pitts wrote: > On 9/24/16 6:31 AM, Askfor wrote: >> I am going to need a template engine which is, as much as possible, java >> specific and HTML specific. I don't need general purpose templates, but >> ones which still look like HTML code >> >> Being more general is a negative feature for me. > I can understand this sentiment. I think though that you'll find > general features indeed solve for your specific use-cases far better > than something that is "specific" for a set of someone else's use-cases. > >> Working with platforms other than Java is negative, too. > This one I don't understand at all. "I want to use something that works > on Java" makes sense, but then saying "It can't have a PHP port" is just > ridiculous. > > Perhaps you could expand on your lower-level use-cases which you think > suggests that you have to restrict yourself in such a strange way. Short explanation: less specific often means more configuration and/or more boilerplate code.