(agreed. let's stop talking on specific templates.) As to the reusability, form actions can actually be put in an abstract class, so a particular application can subclass it by implement of action methods with an optional xml control. But I have the same feeling as in Ken Clark's original post, one could not go too far beyond that, or not worth of doing that. Using an existing tool may solve one problem but it usually takes as much time to add or modify something later. On the other hand, the typical size of web projects nowadays is still well within our ability of write-from-scratch.
Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peter Bi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Wim Kerkhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ken Y. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Re: full-featured online database apps > Peter Bi wrote: > > Well, I changed it back to "HTML::Template". > > No template flame wars, please. HTML::Template is not unique (it has > much in common with Template Toolkit and dozens of other less famous > modules from CPAN), and Embperl::Object is really pretty cool. Your > original point about separating presentation out into templates helping > with code reusability is a good one, so let's just leave it at that. > > - Perrin > >
