My take is that it's not the TAL features (tal:define, python:, whatever) that invite misuse, but the available namespaces.

I have ported ZPT to Django [1][2] and found the experience surprisingly refreshing. Django naturally does not have anything like "container" or "context" in the Zope sense. And by Django policy, templates don't even get to see the "request". The namespace Zope PTs call "options" becomes the sole, top-level namespace in Django PTs.

This very effectively keeps me from pulling-in anything not provided by the view in the first place. Everything -- even functions I want to call in, say, conditions -- has to be added by the view. The result is clean and fast templates.



On 11. Feb 2006, at 21:03, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

I almost felt that something was missing, because I'm so used to inserting "tal:define" in page templates. But now I realize that this is a mistake.

There was a discussion recently on the list about python expressions being a bad idea, think twice I would say that "tal:define" is much worse:

When writing templates, the temptation is great to insert a "tal:define" to pull some data into the view which is not directly available in the model represented by the view. But the idea with a template is that it should represent some data using some markup. The data is supposed to be already available in some context. If the presentation layer needs to cook some extra data, it means that there isn't enough presentation data in the first place.

Anything that happens, happens.  --Douglas Adams

Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to