Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
Hi! Mostly the same here. I like it for testing and the only reason I can think of why it should be disabled is that you want to avoid setting params specific for your template. I kind of like the strict behavior on a second way: it remind me of use strict with scopes 'n stuff, but that may be just a subjective preference. Hth, Alex -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: cgiapp-boun...@lists.erlbaum.net [mailto:cgiapp-boun...@lists.erlbaum.net] Im Auftrag von r...@savage.net.au Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2009 03:30 An: CGI Application Betreff: Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl Hi Mark Quoting Mark Stosberg m...@summersault.com: To proceed, I'd like to hear at least a small chorus of voices claiming that the they use the die_on_bad_params feature. I always use it, since in testing I want to know immediately if there is a problem. I assume those who don't use it do so in order to avoid having to set every parameter in the template. Is that right? # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## #### Eingehende eMail ist virenfrei. Von AVG überprüft - www.avg.de Version: 9.0.704 / Virendatenbank: 270.14.59/2494 - Ausgabedatum: 11/10/09 08:38:00 # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 20:56 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: To proceed, I'd like to hear at least a small chorus of voices claiming that the they use the die_on_bad_params feature. I use it all the time as an alternative to an if-then-else: if a piece of content is not to be displayed, I just dont define its template variable. But from the tone of your and following messages, I sense that I am doing something Seriously Bad (TM). If that is the case, I would be happy to hear reasons. # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
.. I don't know how many people use die_on_bad_params, so I don't know how worth it it is to modify the core. .. I use it exclusively, under the assumption that, like 'use strict', it is just best practice, may make my code faster and less error-ridden, and may endow me with good looks and untold riches. I have no scientific basis for the above assumptions. -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu --- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science === Sent from Madison, Wisconsin, United States # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
On 11/11/2009 10:46 AM, P Kishor wrote: I use it exclusively, under the assumption that, like 'use strict', it is just best practice, But a real question I have is, should designers (who are the ones creating these, or at least that's one of it's benefits is that they can) be burdened with strict when the environment they operate in (HTML, CSS) is inherently not strict. may make my code faster I seriously doubt this. Especially if your code has to do lots of $tmpl-query() stuff to make sure that a variable is present before doing a $tmpl-param(). and less error-ridden, The only error I know that this catches is a misspelling on the programmer's side. Which I'll admit is a real problem. But in most of my cases, it's a problem that's easily seen because the data does not show up where it should. and may endow me with good looks and untold riches Maybe if you rub Sam Tregar's belly. But I'd be careful, he's got a mean right hook :) -- Michael Peters Plus Three, LP # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:30:21 + r...@savage.net.au wrote: Hi Mark Quoting Mark Stosberg m...@summersault.com: To proceed, I'd like to hear at least a small chorus of voices claiming that the they use the die_on_bad_params feature. I always use it, since in testing I want to know immediately if there is a problem. I assume those who don't use it do so in order to avoid having to set every parameter in the template. Is that right? As a standard part of our toolkit, we make all of our config variables always available to the template, with a cfg_ prefix appended to their name. So, the designer knows for instance she has the option to put !-- tmpl_var cfg_root_uri -- in the template, but it is not required on every page. If we need to precisely test the template, we can use a simple regex match to check that tokens appear in the file, our we can use html_tmpl_class() and HTML::Template::Dumper for a more formal approach. Mark -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark StosbergPrincipal Developer m...@summersault.com Summersault, LLC 765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites . . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . . # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
Hi Michael Quoting Michael Peters mpet...@plusthree.com: On 11/11/2009 10:46 AM, P Kishor wrote: I use it exclusively, under the assumption that, like 'use strict', it is just best practice, But a real question I have is, should designers (who are the ones creating these, or at least that's one of it's benefits is that they can) be burdened with strict when the environment they operate in (HTML, CSS) is inherently not strict. This is a pathetic argument! Just because X is non-strict does not justify refusing to use strict in Y, when the whole point of strictness is to help improve software reliability. I.e. it's not a case of less strictness is better, but rather, more is - without being fanatical of course... Strictness is not the burden, bugs are :-). # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
Hi Michael Looking back at all of my projects that use HTML::Template I can honestly say that die_on_bad_params has caused more problems then it's fixed for me. It's not an argument against reliability but rather for it. If a valid template change causes an ISE (rather than just an invalid display) I'd say your software is less reliable. You now need a developer to fix what was supposed to be a design problem. Oh. I go by the fact that at least 99% of the template problems I've caught by testing, i.e. before putting the template into production. # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
Re: [cgiapp] proposal for new cgiapp hook: loaded_html_tmpl
This is a pathetic argument! If die_on_bad_params makes it harder for designers to use and less like the tools they are used to using, how can that be a pathetic argument. Just because X is non-strict does not justify refusing to use strict in Y, when the whole point of strictness is to help improve software reliability. Looking back at all of my projects that use HTML::Template I can honestly say that die_on_bad_params has caused more problems then it's fixed for me. It's not an argument against reliability but rather for it. If a valid template change causes an ISE (rather than just an invalid display) I'd say your software is less reliable. You now need a developer to fix what was supposed to be a design problem. That ist he argument I always hear from people not using strict when getting the advice to use strict. Of course, if no strict was used, using strict causes problems, e.g. by aborting for each non declared variable. But that is not the point. The point is, to avoid errors and bugs and unvorseen behavior by using strict in the first place. # CGI::Application community mailing list #### ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp## #### ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ####
