On Jul 26, 2004, at 12:56 Uhr, Raphael Bauduin wrote:

> Florian Weber wrote:
>>> He's saying that he does not want to have 'foo' referencing something
>>> real (i.e. the parameters passed to the page) cause that adds 
>>> coupling
>>> beetween the view logic and the business logic.
>> i guess it all depends on what you prefer. the business data and the
>> view will always be coupled more or less. if you like the abstraction
>> of having some mediator/binding/etc or wanna do it directly..
>> the question is though: if the person who does the templates is the
>> same person who does the rest of the (ruby) coding, what do you gain
>> by the indirection of bindings/etc?
>
> When I work with a designer, I design a _very_ basic template, and let 
> the designer do the layout and all the work on the template. And the 
> designer doesn't have to deal with values coming from my code, he 
> doesn't care, and shouldn't.
> So whatever I code, I won't break his layout. And whatever he does on 
> the template, he won't break the code. Very reassuring in both ways!


but what for example if the attribute of a item in a repitition gets 
renamed.
for example you decide replace the single 'address' attribute in your
ruby object to 'address1' and 'address2'. you will most likely also 
change
your binding file to represent those changes.. then the designer will 
also
have to change the template file..

but like i said, what do you gain by the indirection if the ruby and the
html programmer are the same person?