Hi Carlton, Thanks for replying so quickly. It's definitely been an itch for me, as check the docs and Stack Overflow every year to check if this has been implemented!
I've completed the Gist with an "include/extends" example, but I haven't done the same for inclusion tags: as far as I know, an inclusion tag has a single, fixed template, which would require you to create one inclusion tag by component in your "design system", which would be even more cumbersome. And it would not allow you to override multiple block contents with arbitrary HTML, which is the goal here. I plan to use my own implementation more extensively in the coming weeks to check its robustness, but I would be super happy to propose a PR if you find it interesting. At the moment, it's not a big pain point for me, as I can use my custom tag, but I agree with the feeling of Carl above: while useful, it's a small feature and I'm afraid users won't be attracted by a third-party plugin for 50 lines of code... I was wondering why I was feeling like this is a missing piece, and I remembered this morning: I used this feature a lot when I was using Twig (https://twig.symfony.com/doc/3.x/tags/embed.html). It was super useful, especially when working on a web application (vs website), where you have a lot of similar sections and widgets, and I've been missing it a lot over the years. Have a nice day! Pierre On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 5:44:05 AM UTC+2 carlton...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > No problem at all! There’s some itch that folks have here so all for the > good discussing it. > > Thanks for your work on the gist it looks good. I just glanced at it now, > and need to sit down longer but, can I ask you to add a “What’s wrong with > the current tools” section to text? i.e. How would it look using include or > a custom inclusion tag, and so why would a new tag be better? I think that > would be helpful. (Make sense?) > > Kind Regards, > > Carlton > > > On 16 Apr 2021, at 23:03, Pierre Vanliefland <pierre.va...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello! First, sorry if it is not appropriate to bring back this thread > from the grave, but I spent some time on finding a solution for this and > came up with an implementation that: > > 1. Needs very little code > 2. Re-uses the existing code for the extends and include tags > > I have written a Gist that contain the full code (including text) and a > bit of context: > https://gist.github.com/pvanliefland/bb676a906b900c7e29e46b474038a6ca > > Do you think this is worth discussing here? > > *Usage:* > > <body> > {% embed "section.html" %} > {% block title %}Stats{% endblock %} > {% block content %} > <ul> > <li>A stat</li> > ... > </ul> > {% endblock %} > {% endembed %} > {% embed "section.html" %} > {% block title %}Activity{% endblock %} > {% block content %} > <h2>Yesterday</h2> > <p>All my troubles seem so far away</p> > {% endblock %} > {% endembed %} > </body> > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 9:51:03 AM UTC+1 jure.er...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Final comment for this: >> >> we implemented the tag in our dynamicforms library (commit with initial >> implementation >> <https://github.com/velis74/DynamicForms/commit/c65588b0423fe49ebfc141e4a5016abc74d4e854> >> ). >> >> The initial implementation straight-out replaces the django include tag, >> giving it an additional option to also declare a block tag with nested >> blocks. That didn't work on Django 2.2. though, so the final implementation >> now splits the tag in block and non-block variants. >> >> Anyway, I wanted to say that initial implementation wasn't much >> feature-creep on the include tag anyway. It should be a very small PR that >> would eliminate a huge disclaimer in documentation in exchange for a couple >> (literally) lines of new code. >> >> TL;DR: >> >> So: having implemented this, I'd say that code feature-creep is cheaper >> than documentation / support effort needed to explain away demands for the >> functionality? >> >> Curtis, you're free to use this in your Sniplates. I'd just warn about >> the helper function parse_tag which we got here >> <https://www.caktusgroup.com/blog/2017/05/01/building-custom-block-template-tag/> >> >> and don't know the license of, yet. We will get rid of it ourselves if >> there's no reply shortly, but it was convenient when programming the tag :). >> >> To also attempt answer Carlton's fears / second thoughts: this form of >> the tag gives you content / presentation separation in your template. Your >> main template contains and provides all the data required for displaying >> and you then display it by including the actual rendering template, giving >> it the content in content blocks. This way you can easily swap presentation >> without having to swap an entire page's worth of template. Very easy to do >> "view result" vs "view code" in your templates then to give one example. In >> our templates we use it to seamlessly switch between various CSS frameworks >> that we support. >> >> LP, >> Jure >> >> >> On 19. 08. 20 18:08, Carlton Gibson wrote: >> >> Hey Sam. >> >> (“I” is a placeholder in what follows…) >> >> What I’m missing here, personally, having read this thread, and the >> old-one is motivating examples where I go "wow, yeah, that would really >> make my life easier”. >> >> I read it and think yeah maybe. I see a couple of positive comments from >> people who’s judgement I would trust. But I STILL don’t really see what I’d >> gain. (I could spend hours thinking over it but it’s not clear I have that >> time.) >> >> Then I see Curtis, who’s judgement I do trust, saying “I have this (or >> similar) working in my package over here”. I then think, well let’s push >> forward with that, and I’ll put it on the list to check out next time I >> need something in this ballpark. (Not a placeholder: I think I recall >> Curtis showing me this package in Florence a few years ago, but I have to >> admit to forgetting about it until this thread came up.) >> >> I suspect it’s not really that pressing: after all this time, maybe a >> custom tag is good/easy enough…? — the recent survey showed that people >> aren’t abandoning the DTL on mass: the lack of this feature doesn’t seem to >> be enough to make people jump ship. >> >> Maybe this is the missing feature, but can be show WHY it would be so >> good? >> >> I think compelling use-cases gain converts. The advantage of the >> third-party package is it allows that to be worked out, outside the main >> development cycle, which is so slow, and had such strong backwards >> compatibility constraints that we simply can’t take things which are fully >> worked out… — it has to be right, or there about when we first take it. >> >> C. >> >> >> >> >> On 19 Aug 2020, at 15:34, Sam Willis <sam.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Carlton, >> >> Thanks for chipping in. >> >> As a long time user of Django (I first stated with it back in 2006) from >> my experience where is excels is in providing a full toolbox for building >> things for the web. The most successful “third party” apps and library’s >> tend to be very large editions of functionality rather than small functions >> and template tags. I personally stay away from small libraries as I have >> been bitten before when they are no longer maintained. >> >> One of the criticisms of Node.js and from personal experience reasons why >> people prefer Django and similar “everything included” frameworks is the >> fragmentation of tools and large number of dependancies. >> >> For this reason I don’t think there will ever be a successful “third >> party” implementation of this particular idea. It’s not a big enough tool >> for people to justify adding to their dependancies. (People are more likely >> to swap to Jinja which has Macros and are “sort of” similar if you squint >> at them) >> >> Also, last year I had a quick look at my old implementation again and I >> think I came to the conclusion that it would require some small changes to >> core in order to work. I don’t remember what they are now though. >> >> I understand completely that the barrier for adding new functionality to >> Django should be high. It important to maintain its “maintainability” and >> stop feature creep, but I also think that there is a risk of not developing >> new ideas and attracting new developers and users if it is only >> “maintained”. >> >> (Obviously there are new things happing like the incredible and exciting >> work going into async!) >> >> Anyway, to summarise, I think this needs to be in core to get traction >> and for people to discover it. For some ideas going the external route to >> prove it certainly makes sense but for others (like this) I think it should >> be developed though consensus in the core framework. >> >> Reusable template components are still an unsolved problem that would be >> lovely to solve. >> Thanks! >> Sam >> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 1:05:15 PM UTC+1 jure.er...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> It definitely does. Thanks. >>> >>> Jure >>> >>> On 19/08/2020 14:03, Carlton Gibson wrote: >>> > From the thread, I’d suggest collaboration with Curtis if the ideas >>> are similar enough. >>> > >>> > Also from the thread: the idea seems to fit between include as we have >>> it now, and a custom tag. >>> > Maybe that gap hasn’t been wide enough to grasp sufficient interest? >>> > >>> > I think the standard path for inclusion into core goes more or less: >>> > >>> > * Here’s an idea >>> > * Here’s a third-party implementation. >>> > * Everyone[*] is using it, and the troubles have been ironed-out >>> > * let’s merge it. >>> > >>> > [*]: Everyone ≈ a good number. >>> > >>> > For a third-party lib, there’s no need for it ever get to the last >>> step. (It could but it doesn’t have to.) >>> > Everything we can keep somewhere else makes Django more maintainable, >>> so there’s a general preference for NOT including things if possible. >>> > >>> > Hopefully that makes sense. >>> > >>> > Kind Regards, >>> > >>> > Carlton >>> > >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4b1a3f96-9fa4-4ab3-9213-b00911a57750n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4b1a3f96-9fa4-4ab3-9213-b00911a57750n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. >> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/D9AF6228-F579-43B7-B6C4-DBDC91DF4031%40gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/D9AF6228-F579-43B7-B6C4-DBDC91DF4031%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/fbc48cf4-2835-4c94-be7a-8ee32f4d10a5n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/fbc48cf4-2835-4c94-be7a-8ee32f4d10a5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/7f3580c9-8c76-493a-89f3-5417876e4a9bn%40googlegroups.com.
