Hi Nick,
Thanks for your efforts on this.
- is Template::Provider::PAR a vacant and sensible name?
Yes and yes.
- are there any other, possibly more mature implementations?
None that I'm aware of.
- are there any TT-specific guidelines I should follow when I upload
it? (i.e. besides [1])
Not that I can think of.
After I've uploaded it, would also be interested in any feedback in the
implementation, since this is also my first venture into the TT internals.
Sure thing.
The only thing to be aware of is that the TT internals are being reformed
between v2 and v3. That will include some changes to the provider API which
has got a few ugly corners that need smoothing out. But given that one of the
main goals is to make it easier to subclass providers, I'm hoping that the
transition process will be as painless as possible.
I haven't finalised the design/API for the TT3 provider yet, but the main
architectural differences that come to mind are:
* Clear separation of the generic cache from storage-specific providers
* Throw errors as exceptions. No more returning pairs of values.
So if you, or anyone else has got things they'd like to change about T::P,
trivial or otherwise, then now is a very good time to speak up!
Cheers
A
_______________________________________________
templates mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
