On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 10/20/05, kmh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Shouldn't we encourage a model where site templates are able to > >> explicitly "include" application templates, rather than the other way > >> around? > > >On 10/20/05, Sune Kirkeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That's not how applications and templates work. You can't just > >include a template from another application, you would be missing > >the context that the application views provide. > > A more "include" oriented solution would be to let sites rather than > applications determine which site base template is being extended by an > application template.
If a site wants different application-templates to extend different base-templates, they should override the application-templates. Most sites won't need that kind of over engineering mojo, so we should not burden sites or applications with it. And, for some applications it's even downright troublesome. For example, ibofobi.apps.blog has a blog/base template, which all the other templates extends. The blog/base template makes sure all the blog pages contain a common footer and have the blog-name in the title. Duplicating the title and footer in all the other templates would be silly. > It should also be encouraged > that application features that don't depend on the request be made > templates tags rather than views. Yes, definetly. I've put that in. /s
