On Dec 10, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Shawn M Moore wrote:
> Okay so I think it's already been decided that we don't need to name
> wrappers. Good.
>
> I think we can get away with not allowing subpaths for wrappers.
> Presumably you would use such a thing when you want to wrap only a
> subset of the templates in the package. But then why not just make a new
> package and use mix/alias?
Because templates don't have that requirement.
> So, if we have nameless wrappers that always apply to '/' (or rather, '.'),
> we can have shiny syntax:
>
> wrapper {
> my ($self, @args) = @_;
> html {
> body {
> inner(@args); # or maybe just "inner;" a la Moose
> }
> }
> };
Yes, agreed, that's nice. We could certainly start with that, and then perhaps
support paths with a different keyword, something like:
under '/foo' put wrapper { ... }
That allows us to keep the clean syntax.
> Another option is to specify wrappers in calls to "mix" and "alias". I
> don't know if there's a good use case for this.
Cool idea, but I think that's starting to overload alias too much. I don't see
a use case for it, so I don't really see a need for it. No need to add
something no one has asked for, eh?
Best,
David
_______________________________________________
jifty-devel mailing list
jifty-devel@lists.jifty.org
http://lists.jifty.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jifty-devel
