Re: Templating Solutions
More on XML/XSLT/seperation of roles philosophy http://xml.apache.org/cocoon2/index.html paul Ian Brayshaw wrote: > > > > I was going to stay quiet on this one (still don't know why I am now joining > in). > > I am finding XSLT & XML to be a good alternative to normal templating > techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate > the one data set and have it rendered in different ways for different > applications. I presume this is possible in TT2. H::T has the drawback of > only allowing substitutions for tags defined in the template. Changing the > template to render say a reduced set of data typically involves changing > code. > > I'm also free to choose my transformation platform, using something like > XML::LibXML or Saxon on the server side, or just throwing it straight to the > user and letting their browser take care of the rest. > > Don't think DW jockeys will like the XSLT, but I'm fortunate in not having > to deal with them. > > My £0.02 > > Ian > (... trying desparately to avoid joining the XML bandwagon ...) > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Templating Solutions
David Cantrell wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:20:37AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote: > > David Cantrell wrote: > > of course the line > > will never be 100% clear & cut-out... And as for inventing new wheels - > > well we're all coders & scientists & engineers here... That's what we > > do! > > Well yeah, and it's fun too, but in this case the new wheel is not > necessary. And if I'm building this for your company, I think you'd > rather I spent time writing a kick-ass application (which would of > course be maintainable, extensible, scalable and all sorts of other > laudable -ables) rather than spending the same amount of time writing > a kick-ass mini-language (or learning someone else's mini-language) > and a mediocre app. Agreed (though, people will sneak things like this in anyway!). But I think if you can convince your boss that spending 1 mo developing a templating system (or any set of tools, really) that you believe will increase your productivity by a large %, then you should go for it. But I stipulate: only if there's a valid business reason. And it's all the researching into what other people have done that really takes time. (as an aside: Maybe there's a real need for evaluation of modules / systems here which CPAN doesn't [can't?] cover... If I say something like `Certified', how many flames will I get? ;-) > > I see where you're coming from, but think about how this will be abused > > - coders will get lazy and eventually just embed all the business logic > > in the templates. > > Yes, they will. Unless you have proper procedures in place to prevent > it. Luckily, perl makes it rather easy to encapsulate application logic > elsewhere. Unfortunately, Perl's flexibility also makes it hard to develop procedures for ;-) > > I'd argue that embedding code in your templates is on the way out, and > > the sooner it goes the better. > > So how do you think it can be achieved? Mmm. Might have to re-phrase that - "... embedding *native* code in your templates ...". So I'm saying asp, jsp, etc.. are good attempts, but at opposite ends of the spectrum. We need a more central solution. So to answer your question... (Steve gulps at the risk of being shot for not reading the rest of this thread...): In general, I think tools like TT are going down the right path. But I think that, ultimately, this problem can be solved by introducing a simple java/ECMA-script like language into the ``html'' layer purely for presentation logic and access to application data. The language and how the application feeds data into the Somethin-script datastructures would have to be spec'd outside of Perl (for obvious reasons - it's not Perl!). Combine this in some fashion with XSL and you've got yourself a generic [perhaps over generic?] way of delivering what marketeers like to call dynamic content. The quick alternative to this is to build javascript data structures with your application & use JS in combination with DHTML to generate the pages clientside. (disclaimer: i may have been on crack when i wrote this ;-) Anyway, if you combine the scripting idea with something that's been kicking around in my head for the past year - namely that Perl needs a good `Application Server' in order to compete in the high end of the market - then you've got some more `ground breaking technology' (read: SuperCoolWheel v3.0! ;) for the Marketeers to yabber on about, and potentially a useful set of tools for us developers. Of course, as you point out above, who in their right mind would pay for a new wheel when you could be making your company money instead? Even though there's a potentially *huge* market for this, that's still one problem I can't solve. regards, -- Steve Purkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0) 207 614 8600 Unix Developer red | hot | chilli f: +44 (0) 207 614 8601
Re: Templating Solutions
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> I am finding XSLT & XML to be a good alternative to normal templating
> techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate
> the one data set and have it rendered in different ways for different
> applications. I presume this is possible in TT2.
Have a look at http://london.pm.org/~mark/ttxpath/
(from last technical meeting)
Leo's been playing around with this a bit more since the last technical
meeting and I've been talking over him how it's possible to switch views
and have different output
The concept is you have a template that defines what 'bits' of the xml you
want which you pull out with xpath. You then 'tell' TT to render these
with the view ('output system of choice') which goes through the xml and
converts it into whatever output you feel like recursivly like.
Note that this example has too much code in the template view that
really should be squirrled away/converted into perl (/me hides) but
you get the idea...
Later.
Mark.
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Templating Solutions
Dominic Mitchell sent the following bits through the ether: > You'd be surprised how many people are willing to learn something when > it's got microsoft attached to it and big whopping books from que. Would it be entertaining for people to give small talks on the templating system of their choice at the technical meeting on Thursday? (as long as everyone don't pick TT2 of course...) Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/ ... Off the keyboard, thru the router, over the bridge, nothing but net!
Re: Templating Solutions
Jonathan Stowe sent the following bits through the ether: > As a reference for this kind of thing one might ( if one can be arsed to > look at Java stuff ) to look at the way the Enhydra thingy does things in > creating classes in directories like : We don't need no stinking directories - we can generate Perl code on the fly. This is why comparing Java and Perl tools is tricky... Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/ ... Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine
Re: Templating Solutions
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:08:50PM +1000, Ian Brayshaw wrote: > I am finding XSLT & XML to be a good alternative to normal templating > techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate > the one data set and have it rendered in different ways for different > applications. I presume this is possible in TT2. H::T has the drawback of > only allowing substitutions for tags defined in the template. Changing the > template to render say a reduced set of data typically involves changing > code. > > I'm also free to choose my transformation platform, using something like > XML::LibXML or Saxon on the server side, or just throwing it straight to the > user and letting their browser take care of the rest. Having spent last weekend playing with XSLT and XPath, I've come to similiar conclusions. At the very least, XSLT is entertaining. But what really blew me away was how easy XPath is for grabbing random bits of your XML for use elsewhere. Whoever compared it to regular expressions for XML wasn't far off the mark. Combined with psgml-mode in emacs, to create xhtml files, it's a rather nice authoring solution. > Don't think DW jockeys will like the XSLT, but I'm fortunate in not having > to deal with them. You'd be surprised how many people are willing to learn something when it's got microsoft attached to it and big whopping books from que. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
RE: Templating Solutions
From: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:51 AM > On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:20:37AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote: > > David Cantrell wrote: > > > > > > Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application > > > from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not > > > do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save > > > yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel. > > > > That sounds like a contradictory statement there > > I don't think so. Whilst you should seperate application and presentation > as much as possible, it's a recognition that you'll never be able to > *entirely* seperate them, and so seeing that you're going to have to have > *some* code mixed in with your presentation, you may as well re-use an > existing language instead of inventing a new one. But as Richard wrote yesterday, the point of mini-languages like the TT2 language is that they are specialised for one particular process[1] In the case of TT2, you can write logic in it, but it's only very simple presentaional logic (output one of these blocks for each thing in this list, for example). Another good reason, is that the people designing the output format aren't necessarily the same people that write the data-gathering application. With TT2 you can have a team of highly skilled and highly paid Perl programmers doing extremely clever things to gather the data and a larger team of lowly paid template designers producing the XML, HTML or whatever templates you need to output the data. You can learn the TT2 language in an afternoon. Perl, thankfully, takes a little longer. Dave... [1] You don't, for example, object to writing regexes in a mini-language within Perl. -- The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system.
Re: Templating Solutions
I was going to stay quiet on this one (still don't know why I am now joining in). I am finding XSLT & XML to be a good alternative to normal templating techniques. One of the biggest benifits I've found is being able to generate the one data set and have it rendered in different ways for different applications. I presume this is possible in TT2. H::T has the drawback of only allowing substitutions for tags defined in the template. Changing the template to render say a reduced set of data typically involves changing code. I'm also free to choose my transformation platform, using something like XML::LibXML or Saxon on the server side, or just throwing it straight to the user and letting their browser take care of the rest. Don't think DW jockeys will like the XSLT, but I'm fortunate in not having to deal with them. My £0.02 Ian (... trying desparately to avoid joining the XML bandwagon ...) _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Templating Solutions
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:20:37AM +0100, Steve Purkis wrote: > David Cantrell wrote: > > > > Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application > > from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not > > do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save > > yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel. > > That sounds like a contradictory statement there I don't think so. Whilst you should seperate application and presentation as much as possible, it's a recognition that you'll never be able to *entirely* seperate them, and so seeing that you're going to have to have *some* code mixed in with your presentation, you may as well re-use an existing language instead of inventing a new one. > of course the line > will never be 100% clear & cut-out... And as for inventing new wheels - > well we're all coders & scientists & engineers here... That's what we > do! Well yeah, and it's fun too, but in this case the new wheel is not necessary. And if I'm building this for your company, I think you'd rather I spent time writing a kick-ass application (which would of course be maintainable, extensible, scalable and all sorts of other laudable -ables) rather than spending the same amount of time writing a kick-ass mini-language (or learning someone else's mini-language) and a mediocre app. > I see where you're coming from, but think about how this will be abused > - coders will get lazy and eventually just embed all the business logic > in the templates. Yes, they will. Unless you have proper procedures in place to prevent it. Luckily, perl makes it rather easy to encapsulate application logic elsewhere. > I'd argue that embedding code in your templates is on the way out, and > the sooner it goes the better. So how do you think it can be achieved? -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie
Re: Templating Solutions
David Cantrell wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote: > > > > I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no! > > > > (ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy > > > > HTML and thy Perl in the same file). > > > It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. > > > So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with > > > the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are > > > those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for > > > other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? > > > > Ohmigod, I'm agreeing with Cantrell on something!! > > What am I doing wrong? ;-) > > Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application > from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not > do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save > yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel. That sounds like a contradictory statement there - of course the line will never be 100% clear & cut-out... And as for inventing new wheels - well we're all coders & scientists & engineers here... That's what we do! > You can still stick your business logic elsewhere and have that called > by the perl embedded in the templates. I see where you're coming from, but think about how this will be abused - coders will get lazy and eventually just embed all the business logic in the templates. Then your life will be a living hell. As a worst case scenario you'll end up with (eek!) an inverted Bugzilla! ;-) With the vast array of options we've got on Perl tools for templating & embedding & serving (and other -ings), it seems to me the trend is to create a whole bunch of new wheels. Then everybody talks about them & the better wheel(s) is pointed out, and then maybe then the wheels are improved to become uber-wheels while in the background the cycle repeats itself... I'd argue that embedding code in your templates is on the way out, and the sooner it goes the better. I think it was a necessary step away from embedding templates in your code (eg. cgi scripts), but now it's time to recognize the aforementioned split & revise our models & tools accordingly (and create new ones if necessary). But then again, this has prolly all been said before. Anyways, that's my 2c. -- Steve Purkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: +44 (0) 207 614 8600 Unix Developer red | hot | chilli f: +44 (0) 207 614 8601
Re: Templating Solutions
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:11:47AM +0100, Robert Price wrote: > At 08:36 AM 6/19/01 +0100, Leo wrote: > >http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt, > >the key line is: > >my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh); > > [snip] > > Hope that's not copyrighted Emap code you have there :-) Was part of what I got permission to 'open source' :) - It's not as if they're going to want to use it any more :) Leo
Re: Templating Solutions
At 08:36 AM 6/19/01 +0100, Leo wrote: >Have a look at this, TT2 based solution, it's a bit >bloated (as it includes page numbering and various other >functions): > >http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt, >the key line is: >my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh); [snip] Hope that's not copyrighted Emap code you have there :-) Rob
Re: Templating Solutions
Philip, Have a look at this, TT2 based solution, it's a bit bloated (as it includes page numbering and various other functions): http://test.cuckoo.org/script_template.txt, the key line is: my $results = Emap::HolidayFinder::Tod::do_search(\%form_input,$dbh); This is then merged with the template by parsing it in as a reference in %vals. The template used (depending on number of results) would either be: http://test.cuckoo.org/template_results.txt http://test.cuckoo.org/template_search.txt Hope these examples make it clearer how design logic can be seperated. Especially note that the code does not have to worry about how to get a drop down list value selected or whether an error message is to be shown (just if it should be set). Leo On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 07:45:26AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > It is possible to write embedded perl templates well, but a > > lot more difficult than if they are separated out. > > How does non-embedded Perl look like, then?
Re: Templating Solutions
True, DW monkey can crap anything up, but not True that H::T is better to DW edit than T::T (You can set your tags to be just as with H::T. Leo On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +0100, Struan Donald wrote: > * at 18/06 17:21 +0100 Roger Burton West said: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > > The main reason I prefer H::T to T::T is that H::T templates can be > > given to Dreamweaver monkeys to edit without my having to worry that > > they'll screw them up. > > That is an important consideration although in my experience a > taleneted dreamweaver mokey can screw up pretty much anything that > isn't created by dreamweaver in the first place. >
Re: Templating Solutions
Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > It is possible to write embedded perl templates well, but a > lot more difficult than if they are separated out. How does non-embedded Perl look like, then? Is Perl the outside layer and basically does '#include "navbar.html"' at certain points? Or is HTML the outside layer and does something like <% require "read-database.pl"; &read; %>? Or what does it look like if they're *not* in the same file? I have next to no experience with separated code and data (yes, my SQL statements are also in my Perl source files); I've written toy CGI scripts (HTML embedded in Perl) and my day job at the moment includes StoryServer (Tcl embedded in HTML), so I don't think I have much idea of how something else would work. Explanations welcome. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:08:06PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > > > It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. > > > So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with > > > the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are > > > those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for > > > other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? > > Ohmigod, I'm agreeing with Cantrell on something!! > What am I doing wrong? ;-) The next few paras. :-) > Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application > from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not > do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save > yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel. I have done both. I have to say, that ultimately, I think I prefer the code/data separation, and certainly started looking more at that kind of thing, having had to maintain templates I once wrote which were mixed. Those templates only had calls into modules elsewhere, so the main code was in modules, but it's the same argument, ultimately as accessor methods in OO. > You can still stick your business logic elsewhere and have that called > by the perl embedded in the templates. Exactly what we did. It still ended up being unmaintainable. > > Despite having written an embedded perl templating system, I'm now very > > much in favour of one where the tags are just delimiters as far as possible. > > Thus I think things like HTML::Template are actually better than TT2, > > precisely because the toy language in TT2 is just as bad as embedding code. > > See my point about SQL, as it's related to this. > Think of SQL as being a cross-language extension to the 'host' language > and you'll feel much better about it :-) I think the smiley indicates the point of this. :-) And there, you use things like stored procedures which go a long way towards that separation. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 08:24:13PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote: > > > I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no! > > > (ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy > > > HTML and thy Perl in the same file). > > It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. > > So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with > > the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are > > those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for > > other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? > > Ohmigod, I'm agreeing with Cantrell on something!! What am I doing wrong? ;-) Seriously, I agree 100% that you should strive to seperate application from your presentation as much as possible, but seeing that you can not do this entirely, you may as well embed perl in your HTML and save yourself the trouble of inventing a whole new wheel. You can still stick your business logic elsewhere and have that called by the perl embedded in the templates. > Despite having written an embedded perl templating system, I'm now very > much in favour of one where the tags are just delimiters as far as possible. > Thus I think things like HTML::Template are actually better than TT2, > precisely because the toy language in TT2 is just as bad as embedding code. > > See my point about SQL, as it's related to this. Think of SQL as being a cross-language extension to the 'host' language and you'll feel much better about it :-) -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote: > > I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no! > > (ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy > > HTML and thy Perl in the same file). > It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. > So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with > the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are > those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for > other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? Ohmigod, I'm agreeing with Cantrell on something!! Despite having written an embedded perl templating system, I'm now very much in favour of one where the tags are just delimiters as far as possible. Thus I think things like HTML::Template are actually better than TT2, precisely because the toy language in TT2 is just as bad as embedding code. See my point about SQL, as it's related to this. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > >Simon Wilcox wrote: > >> I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > >> embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > > > >Why is that so evil? > > > >I'm willing to be enlightened here. > > Separation of code and data - or in this case, layout, content > and logic. As a reference for this kind of thing one might ( if one can be arsed to look at Java stuff ) to look at the way the Enhydra thingy does things in creating classes in directories like : business data presentation resources /J\
Re: Templating Solutions
On 18 Jun 2001, Steve Mynott wrote: > Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Template Toolkit > > HTML::Mason > > Text::Template > > HTML::Template > > HTML::Embperl > > Also Apache::ASP > I did have this crackhead idea a week or two ago about making something that 'Compiled' HTML to modules with something like a DOM interface (much like the thing with Enhydra does ) - this of course would not really be Templating but something more like manipulating the HTML directly through method calls ... I wont bore you with the code as its not at all finished. /J\
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:54:36PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. You're missing a word from the end of the sentence, and that's I. If you add it you're obviously wrong though... > So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with > the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are > those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for > other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? TT's toy language is a presentation language, not a programming one. It's different enough so that you can't easily put too much programming logic into it, IME at least. -- Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "so we've got a deadline. we can do deadlines."
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:46:25PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote: > I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no! > (ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy > HTML and thy Perl in the same file). It is NOT POSSIBLE to completely divorce presentation/application. So you end up with all sorts of languages made up to be mixed in with the presentation - like PHP and the mini-language of TT. Why are those OK (I'm thinking specifically of TT - we all know PHP sucks for other reasons) but plain ol' perl isn't? -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it-- Agatha Christie
Re: Templating Solutions
Philip Newton wrote: > > Simon Wilcox wrote: > > I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > > embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > > Why is that so evil? > > I'm willing to be enlightened here. > A couple of reasons. Separation of code & presentation is good because it means that your designers can concentrate on the design & html whilst your programmers concentrate on function. It helps if those not familiar with perl don't have to worry about it. They get a domain specific language that is easy to understand (TT2 scores well here because it hides the differences between scalars, arrays, hashes and object methods), and hopefully difficult for them to break. See this thread for Andy's take on this. http://www.template-toolkit.org/pipermail/templates/2001-June/001076.html Secondly, it helps with maintenance & reusability if all your perl code is in one place, there's less to change and less chance of thiongs going wrong. This really helps when the PHBs come along and ask if you can redesign the pages for a particular client. Whilst this can be done if you've mixed up perl into your template it makes it much harder because there is a lot more for the designers to break (and let's not even mention asp/php/jsp :) Now I accept that if you are the sole programmer/developer/designer on a project then it maybe doesn't matter but I have found that it helps me to work in a separated way, so when they say, as they have, "ah, we need the first two years in this table and the rest in that one" it becomes a presentation issue and not a perl coding issue [1]. HTH, Simon. [1] It was really easy to do in a TT2 template as well !
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: >Simon Wilcox wrote: >> I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all >> embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > >Why is that so evil? > >I'm willing to be enlightened here. Separation of code and data - or in this case, layout, content and logic. You can have multiple template files (say, for HTML, WAP, I-mode, and whatnot) while keeping a single, fairly simple program as the back-end (which doesn't need to know what sort of platform it's filling in a template for, just which template file to load). Roger
Re: Templating Solutions
Leo Lapworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oi, > > Rob, > > What's this, > > Home grown (and not smokable), > > I left Emap too early if your not a TT2 convert yet. > > We can 'do lunch' later this week and I'll bash you > with some TT2 docs or something :) Oooh! Me too! -- Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim CTO, web server farms, technical strategy
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 05:39:11PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > > Simon Wilcox wrote: > > > I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > > > embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > > Why is that so evil? > > I'm willing to be enlightened here. > > Mainly maintainability. In the same way as it's evil to mix two types of > language - Perl and SQL, although people seem to be a lot more prepared > to do this :-( > > The point is that if you are embedding perl, there are too many places > that things can be changed. It is possible to write embedded perl templates > well, but a lot more difficult than if they are separated out. Most of the Java thingies that I've looked at start talking about MVC at this point as a good solution to the problem. But I don't know anything about that, and I would love somebody to explain it to me in nice perlisms. I'd love to have a decent solution to keeping lots of code out of the HTML files. At the moment, I'm thinking that it might just be simplest to move things over to AxKit taglibs... -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 06:30:24PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Simon Wilcox wrote: > > I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > > embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > Why is that so evil? > I'm willing to be enlightened here. Mainly maintainability. In the same way as it's evil to mix two types of language - Perl and SQL, although people seem to be a lot more prepared to do this :-( The point is that if you are embedding perl, there are too many places that things can be changed. It is possible to write embedded perl templates well, but a lot more difficult than if they are separated out. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/
Re: Templating Solutions
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Simon Wilcox wrote: > > I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > > embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). > > Why is that so evil? > i think it one of two schools of thought is your template a Template or a Rich Template by Rich Template i mean it has some programming language type structures such as loops i think, if i recall my limited research correctly, MJD talks about this in the pod for Text::Template under the section Philosophy Greg -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Templating Solutions
* at 18/06 17:21 +0100 Roger Burton West said: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > The main reason I prefer H::T to T::T is that H::T templates can be > given to Dreamweaver monkeys to edit without my having to worry that > they'll screw them up. That is an important consideration although in my experience a taleneted dreamweaver mokey can screw up pretty much anything that isn't created by dreamweaver in the first place. struan
Re: Templating Solutions
Simon Wilcox wrote: > I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all > embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). Why is that so evil? I'm willing to be enlightened here. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: >First, are there any others that I should look at? Also I'd really like >any objective input people have about templating with these modules. It >is important to me to try and not just get the article done and dusted, >but for once to write a piece of text that I am happy with. Key distinction is: what sort of code is going into the page? Is it something fairly basic (H::T, T::T in some ways of using it) or something closer to actual perl? (In the latter case, of course, it is Evil, because it removes any possibility of separation of code and data - you might as well be writing PHP.) The main reason I prefer H::T to T::T is that H::T templates can be given to Dreamweaver monkeys to edit without my having to worry that they'll screw them up. Roger
Re: Templating Solutions
I like ePerl, comprised of Apache::ePerl Parse::ePerl It's a very simple does what it says on the tin way of embedding perl in any other (text) fine, plus it has low level access to what it does in it's parse routine. Handy in many situations, I find. No new versions since 1998 and none planned, so it's stable. Or dead, depending on your viewpoint. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Templating Solutions
Greg McCarroll wrote: > > Template Toolkit > HTML::Mason > Text::Template > HTML::Template > HTML::Embperl > Apache::ASP > First, are there any others that I should look at? Also I'd really like > any objective input people have about templating with these modules. It > is important to me to try and not just get the article done and dusted, > but for once to write a piece of text that I am happy with. I have had good results with HTML::Template for doing simple 1 form CGI scripts. It is easy to use and has a small feature set which makes it easy to learn. I found it a good replacement for inline html and my home-grown templating system (everyone has one right ?) Now I use TT2 because it is much more flexible. Things I can do in TT2 I can't do in HTML::Template (or at least never tried to do): Write out non-html (e.g. XML, plain text, csv). Access object methods from the template Call back into perl from the template Anyway, others can evangelise TT2 much better than I so I'll stop here. I avoided HTML::Embperl, HTML::Mason & Apache::ASP because they all embed perl into the template which is a Bad Thing (tm). My £0.02. -- Simon. Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
Re: Templating Solutions
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Template Toolkit > HTML::Mason > Text::Template > HTML::Template > HTML::Embperl Also Apache::ASP searching for template on CPAN also gets quite a lot of hits... -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. -- mark twain
Re: Templating Solutions
Oi, Rob, What's this, Home grown (and not smokable), I left Emap too early if your not a TT2 convert yet. We can 'do lunch' later this week and I'll bash you with some TT2 docs or something :) Leo On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:57:17PM +0100, Robert Price wrote: > It may be a good idea to compare > the templating systems available on CPAN to a home grown one. What > advantages they give and what are the disadvantages etc
Re: Templating Solutions
At 04:36 PM 6/18/01 +0100, Greg wrote: >In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on >templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my >writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and >contrast article and so far I've looked at, [list of CPAN templating modules] I'm sure many of us have written and used home grown templating systems such a simple regex over a basic template. It may be a good idea to compare the templating systems available on CPAN to a home grown one. What advantages they give and what are the disadvantages etc Rob
Re: Templating Solutions
Greg McCarroll sent the following bits through the ether: > In a moment of stupidity[1] Fool. There are at least 30 other Perl templating systems. See the templating systems benchmark last week on the mod_perl list for example. Perrin Harkins is presenting "Choosing a Templating System" at oscon, so you could at least ask him for his list... Leon ps speed isn't important -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/ ... If I were you, who'd be me?
Re: Templating Solutions
Greg, I did this (just for TT2 and HTML::Template) for torrington, results (REALLY badly formatted *blushes to admit it was done in word and saved to HTML*) can be seen at: http://torrington.cuckoo.org/template_systems.shtml No (c) on it.. so feel free to hack and copy as you will. Hope it's of some use, obviously it's aimed at a specific audience, e.g. the Agency and trying to get them to move from HTML::Template to TT2 (personally I think that's why they went under - not using TT, but it's just my consipricy theory) :) I'd also like to mention HTML::Mason - Euuu, No, no and thrice no! (ok, has some nice 'bits' but NO - thou shalt not put thy HTML and thy Perl in the same file). Leo On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on > templating solutions for Perl.
Re: Templating Solutions
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 04:36:00PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote: > In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on > templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my > writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and > contrast article and so far I've looked at, > > Template Toolkit > HTML::Mason > Text::Template > HTML::Template > HTML::Embperl > > First, are there any others that I should look at? Also I'd really like > any objective input people have about templating with these modules. It > is important to me to try and not just get the article done and dusted, > but for once to write a piece of text that I am happy with. Very simple, but what I've done in the past is simply read in a file and do something like: $text =~ s/\$(\w+)/$1/eeg; Which substitutes any perl vars in the file for stuff in your current program. Not very pretty, but cheap and easy. -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Templating Solutions
Friends, HELP! In a moment of stupidity[1] I agreed to write an article for lathos on templating solutions for Perl. This was an attempt to finally break my writing block/issues/mindset problems. It is going to be a compare and contrast article and so far I've looked at, Template Toolkit HTML::Mason Text::Template HTML::Template HTML::Embperl First, are there any others that I should look at? Also I'd really like any objective input people have about templating with these modules. It is important to me to try and not just get the article done and dusted, but for once to write a piece of text that I am happy with. Greg [1] I get lots. -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
