Martijn Faassen wrote:

I don't think it has an implementation of string TALES expressions.

It's parsing anything that's actually *inside* the attributes you add on HTML with tal, such as detecting whether a TALES expression type identifier is used ('string:' or 'python:', say), or 'structure', and the right splitting of tal:repeat="foo bar" (into 'foo' and 'bar'), and semicolons for multiple attributes with tal:attributes, and so on. I just literally ported that code to javascript from Zope's implementation so it follows the established rules pretty well.

OK, now I get it :-)

in the CTAL implementation this is done for each type of rule (ctal:content, ctal:attributes, ...) using ctal.eval_expr() or ctal.get_nameexpr() or eval_pathexpr(). Could be good to have a single method for parsing the expressions.


More in general, it's possible that some template will receive two sets of data that's quite separate from each other. I like namespaces then too. You can of course always argue that such a template should be factored into multiple smaller ones, though the question remains how they'd each receive only their data and not the rest.

what I mean it that the structures can always be merged before they are passed to the template, then the data can be organized as:

data = {
 items: [ ...],
 people: [],
 somemoredata: {}

ZPT does a mapping between several data structures (context, request, view ...) and the variables with the same name in TAL, which results in several namespaces. Such variables are very platform-dependent and a templating language basically needs only one data structure to do the rendering..

I'm not sure I understand fully... Perhaps you mean this:

A pattern in templating is to prepare the data fully in nested dictionaries and lists with simple strings and integers inside before the data is pushed along to a template, as opposed to the template pulling it out of request and context and view individually (with method calls, often). Perhaps you are referring to this pattern. I like this pattern, as it has positive qualities concerning debuggability, modularity, loose coupling and makes possible various performance optimizations.

XSLT and ClearSilver are templating languages which have this pattern. TAL can be made to follow this pattern with some small modifications.



Yes, that's what I mean. Clearsilver is a good example. There are several advantages:

- the data structures are platform-independent (they can be encoded in JSON, C, python), and they can be easily converted from one language to another, even to and from XML, this simplifies the transport too (e.g. in Ajax, webservices)

- the template does less, it does not need to know anything about zope, it works faster, the data access from inside the template is not an access to the ZODB ...

- it is possible to create a simple schema definition from the data structure itself (this is what I've done in the Ajax toolkit I'm writing)
 for instance from:

 data {
   "personid": 123,
   "name": "bill"
   "info": {..},
   "phonenumbers": []

 one can deduce a simple schema like:

 schema = {
   "personid": int,
   "name": string,
   "info": dict,
   "phonenumbers": list

of course this works only on the first-level of the structure, but this is enough in many use cases to make sure that an integer field for example does not all of a sudden become a list. This can be used to enforce a storage policy.


Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to