On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 12:55 -0800, Iain Duncan wrote: > > > > - Tempita: our form/field generating system uses tempita as > a light > > fast template language for tiny templates, this could be > replaced > > > Almost any other templating system would be better here as > tempita is > unmaintained. Any of Mako, Jinja2 or Chameleon would work; > each is Py3 > compat. > > > > > Thanks Chris, that's exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for. I > chose Tempita because in this case I'm using something really simple > and lightweight for super small templating, I guess maybe I should > switch to using the built in tmpl facilities, a 'real' templating > language is likely to be overkill for this particular use. hmmm,
Not sure what you're trying to optimize for. What does "lightweight" mean in this (or really any) context? If lightweight means "fast", there's no way tempita is appreciably faster than any of mako, chameleon, or jinja2, and it's likely much slower. > > - PasteScript: we have a bunch of code generation utilities > that are > > done using PasteScript. > > > If it's only about creating Pyramid scaffolding, Pyramid now > has code > generation facilities built in to it. See > > http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/en/1.3-branch/narr/scaffolding.html > > > > > Is this api compatible with pastescript code generation or will it > require a fair bit of retooling? I gather you are replacing > pastescript because of the maintenance/documentation/python3 > situation? Yes. It's pretty close to compatible. The docs explain what needs to change. - C -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
