Hi Christopher, On 02/15/2014 09:43 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > What I'm proposing now is more conservative proposal. Firstly, Django will > support Jinja2 out-of-the-box, but DTL will remain the "blessed" option. > Secondly, Django will allow to mix DTL and Jinja2 templates (so you can > include/inherit DTL template from Jinja2 one and vice versa). > > After doing it, I could focus on 3) decoupling DTL or/and 4) rewriting > Django > builtin templates in Jinja2 or/and 5) moving rendering form widgets from > Python code to Jinja2 templates.
This sounds reasonable to me. > After that all, we could start again the war DTL vs Jinja2, but please focus > on the new proposal now. > > Questions are: > > 1) What do you think about the new proposal? Would it be useful? Yes, as long as Jinja2 is a hard dependency, such that we can rely on its availability for internal Django use (form widgets). > 2) Jinja2 doesn't support 3.2. Will Django 1.8 support 3.2? Donald might be able to offer better hard numbers based on e.g. PyPI usage, but my impression is that usage of 3.2 is very low, and dropping it for 1.8 would not be a major problem. > 3) Supporting Jinja2 out-of-the-box means introducing dependencies. Are we > ready for this? I think so, yes. Carl
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
