On 10/19/07, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a plan to convert HTML::Template from a prereq into a plugin?
Are you volunteering? ;)
> Maybe the cons outweight the pros. I just really would like to eliminate that
> prereq.
+1
# CGI::Application community mailing lis
> I am not a big fan of HTML::Template. It just doesn't float my boat.
> It bugs
> me a little bit that it's a prereq of CGI::Application, especially when
> it
> isn't, then, really needed.
I am a big fan of HTML::Template, which is why I put in there in the first
place. In spite of the fact
On 10/19/07, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it's just like a scab I keep picking at, though, and I should STFU.
I wouldn't quite put it that way. But I've always felt that
HTML::Template is to TT as Email::Simple is to Mail::Message. (It's
documented, in not quite those terms,
Late chime-in, but my vote: -1
I'm a strong H::T proponent (despite Cees' multiple attempts to sway me
to the dark side ;)), so I enjoy the coupling of functionality.
That's subjective, of course, so let me add something objective. If it
were to become decoupled, I would have to go through a
"Jason Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Late chime-in, but my vote: -1
(Not that this is a democracy, but...) I vote no, too :-)
HTML::Template, while it annoys me at times, is a small, fast and
easy-to-install. Therefore it is an entirely reasonable default templating
engine, which you c
On 10/22/07, Jason Purdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> H::T is a simple and fast templating engine that enforces strict MVC,
> too.
Simple, yes -- to a fault. In my experience, I find what constitutes
the parts of MVC to be subjective. I haven't heard much of an argument
about what belongs in the
again, now that we've been all over this, what's the rub here?
Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Appnel
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 5:46 PM
To: CGI Application
Subject: Re: [cgiapp] strategies for decouplin
On 10/22/07, Berg, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, again, now that we've been all over this, what's the rub here?
I was kind of wondering that here as I wrote my last message.
Templating religion aside, I *think* it's a choice/modularity vs.
backwards compat debate at the heart of it. Perha
