On 3 Aug 2000, (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
"Drew" == Drew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Drew I suppose I could... I was planning on having a nice checklist of
Drew features/systems that would be a pain to do in a fixed width font. An
Drew HTML table would make my life MUCH easier
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/3/00 -0700, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to it. Awfully
nice to able to roll back to a previous version - although (knock on
wood!) I
At 08:03 AM 8/4/00 +0100, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Gunther Birznieks wrote:
At 05:10 PM 8/3/00 -0700, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to it.
Awfully
nice to able to roll back to a
I hope that you write the doc is POD :)
I suppose I could... I was planning on having a nice checklist of
features/systems that would be a pain to do in a fixed width font. An
HTML table would make my life MUCH easier there. Is there something in
POD that makes tables easier?
Gunther Birznieks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said something to this effect:
One book I would highly recommend on CVS is Open Source Development with
CVS by Karl Franz Fogel. I found it to be not only highly informative but
an incredibly fun read as well. Each of the semi-dry CVS chapters is
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
I hope that you write the doc is POD :)
I suppose I could... I was planning on having a nice checklist of
features/systems that would be a pain to do in a fixed width font. An
HTML table would make my life MUCH easier there. Is there
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
People are migrating to XML because there are good editors coming onto the
market (though sadly none for Linux yet, but I'm getting close to
persuading Arbotext to port Adept to Linux...). The editors hide the
complexity and you never need to see
Stas Bekman wrote:
I believe XML is a way too heavy for docs writing. Why one will want to
get a messy source code, when you can get away with a minimalistic POD.
Just look at the Guide's source code and look at the generated PDF --
isn't it great? I love POD. And if you want more than POD
On 2 Aug 2000, (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
"Ron" == Ron Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron A few days ago I sent this suggestion to Drew Taylor, who is
Ron preparing a web page comparing the templating systems. He said he
Ron likes the idea. The Categorical "Congratulations: you wrote a
"Randal L. Schwartz" wrote:
"Ron" == Ron Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron A few days ago I sent this suggestion to Drew Taylor, who is
Ron preparing a web page comparing the templating systems. He said he
Ron likes the idea. The Categorical "Congratulations: you wrote a
Ron templating
Ken Williams wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gunther Birznieks) wrote:
I am afraid that while I agree, a check system is really quite useful to
me. Some things do need more quantification, but that can be done later.
eg lightweight vs heavyweight is subjective. But it can be broken up into
I think splitting the systems into tiers (simple, average, framework)
will also help to solve this problem. And of course, the feature
checklist will be a continually evolving creature.
Absolutely agree. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. I don't
see why a complete app server system
Ron Pero wrote:
[cut]
* Place the templating systems into a spectrum of categories, from simplest
to most complex/developed.
It would look approximately like this (not attempting to be complete):
-Level one, simplest
* Simple tag/anchor replacement
* Embedded code
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Gunther, has anyone found a good home for such a comparison to be
hosted? It would be cool if it were at perl.apache.org, or even better
at www.perl.com or something (since it's not mod_perl specific).
Stas Bekman wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Gunther, has anyone found a good home for such a comparison to be
hosted? It would be cool if it were at perl.apache.org, or even better
at www.perl.com or something (since it's
Stas Bekman wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Gunther, has anyone found a good home for such a comparison to be
hosted? It would be cool if it were at perl.apache.org, or even better
at www.perl.com or something
[this goes off the list]
BTW, you probably don't remember me, but we briefly met at ApacheCon and
Do you have a picture online. I'm sure I'll recall once I see you again!
I attended your mod_perl classes there (and enjoyed them). :-)
Thanks a lot!
501 N. College Street
Charlotte, NC
I apologize, I forgot to strip the list's address when sending this.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Stas Bekman wrote:
[this goes off the list]
...snipped...
_
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
Stas Bekman wrote:
Sure, no problem. One of the current cvs access holders can commit the
first release for you, and then you will be able to continue by
yourself. Obviously getting all the support that you might need on the
way.
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to it. Awfully
nice to able to roll back to a previous version - although (knock on
wood!) I haven't had to use it yet.
I can help if you get stuck.
I hope that you write the doc is POD :)
I
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to it. Awfully
nice to able to roll back to a previous version - although (knock on
wood!) I haven't had to use it yet.
I can help if you get stuck.
I hope that you
"Drew" == Drew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Drew I suppose I could... I was planning on having a nice checklist of
Drew features/systems that would be a pain to do in a fixed width font. An
Drew HTML table would make my life MUCH easier there. Is there something in
Drew POD that makes
At 05:10 PM 8/3/00 -0700, Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Having recently discovered the joy of CVS, I look forward to it. Awfully
nice to able to roll back to a previous version - although (knock on
wood!) I haven't had to use it yet.
I can help if you get
At 05:33 PM 8/3/00 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Drew" == Drew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Drew I suppose I could... I was planning on having a nice checklist of
Drew features/systems that would be a pain to do in a fixed width font. An
Drew HTML table would make my life MUCH easier
I have to say that I am also interested in template kits myself.
My requirements are almost identical to yours (minus a few advanced things).
Basically, I write open source web applications in Perl -- that means that
they must be able to run reasonably fast on non-modperl systems and must
run
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
Of course, mod_perl support is crucial for those that want to "scale", but
normal CGI/Perl support is really a biggie that I haven't seen highlighted
within the context of this thread.
Most of the popular template modules support CGI use. Almost everything
except
* "loose" expansion of tags
* "template subroutines" (hard to explain in one line)
Please mail me if you're interested in finding out more
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Gunther Birznieks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 02 August 2000 09:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subje
"Eric" == Eric Cholet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi there,
I have a pure perl implementation of a simple templating system which is
(what I consider to be) relatively lightweight - it copes well in both
cgi-bin and mod_perl environments, at least for me. I've looked at various
other
Randal Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One brief serious note: I think the fact that there are SO MANY is a
tribute to just how easy it is to process text in Perl. I don't think
there are 47 templating system for Java. :)
Couldn't agree more. Sometimes Perl is too easy/powerful for its own
Drew Taylor wrote:
Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check. A
system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
supports it (can be switched on and off). This is often very helpful to
know, and might let one get a good sense
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 2:32 AM
Subject: RE: Feature sets [was Re: Templating System]
Hi there,
I have a pure perl implementation of a simple templating system which is
(what I consider to be) relatively lightweight - it copes well in both
cgi-bin
Maybe we should have a "Congratulations: you wrote a templating
system!" web memorial. :)
One brief serious note: I think the fact that there are SO MANY is a
tribute to just how easy it is to process text in Perl. I don't think
there are 47 templating system for Java. :)
A few days ago I
"Ron" == Ron Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ron A few days ago I sent this suggestion to Drew Taylor, who is
Ron preparing a web page comparing the templating systems. He said he
Ron likes the idea. The Categorical "Congratulations: you wrote a
Ron templating system!" web memorial.
Wow, if
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
It seems as if there needs to be a general templating mailing list...
Here I have a comment about comparing template systems, and then I solicit
advice on which system to use...
snip
Bill,
I am afraid that while I agree, a check system is really quite useful to
me. Some things do need more quantification, but that can be done later.
eg lightweight vs heavyweight is subjective. But it can be broken up into
saying something like how much code needs to be loaded at start time (an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gunther Birznieks) wrote:
I am afraid that while I agree, a check system is really quite useful to
me. Some things do need more quantification, but that can be done later.
eg lightweight vs heavyweight is subjective. But it can be broken up into
saying something like how
It seems as if there needs to be a general templating mailing list...
Here I have a comment about comparing template systems, and then I solicit
advice on which system to use...
The only reason I'm using my own templating system (besides the requirement
that everyone writes one) is because I
Bill Moseley wrote:
It seems as if there needs to be a general templating mailing list...
Here I have a comment about comparing template systems, and then I solicit
advice on which system to use...
snip
Bill,
After all the response the thread generated, I wonder if perhaps we
(meaning
Drew Taylor wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
After all the response the thread generated, I wonder if perhaps we
(meaning the people who have control over those things :-) really
_should_ setup another list.
I could see the efficacy of a template developers site for those people
involved in
"Erich L. Markert" wrote:
Drew Taylor wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
After all the response the thread generated, I wonder if perhaps we
(meaning the people who have control over those things :-) really
_should_ setup another list.
I could see the efficacy of a template
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
It seems as if there needs to be a general templating mailing list...
Here I have a comment about comparing template systems, and then I solicit
advice on which system to use...
snip
Bill,
After all the response the
Look at the history of this list: it often gets very bursty and the quiet
again. I think setting up a perl-template mailing list would be initially
heavily trafficed, but be pretty much dead in a few weeks (or days even).
I agree to that
Gerald
Matt Sergeant wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Bill Moseley wrote:
It seems as if there needs to be a general templating mailing list...
Here I have a comment about comparing template systems, and then I solicit
advice on which system to use...
snip
Bill,
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Bill Moseley wrote:
In additions to a comparison of features, people (including me) might find
it useful to have a general overview and comparison of the different
templating _technologies_ and what type of applications work well with each
and why.
I was planning to
In my mind, almost all my applications seem to fit a system where a my
application uses the templates, instead of the templates using my
application. In other words, URLs map to the application and not to
pages. I assume the likes of TT and HTML::Template fit this, but
Embperl, Mason,
Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank D. Cringle) wrote:
unconstructive grumble
This sounds dreadfully microsoftian. Trashcan: check; Bouncing
paperclip: check.
Well yeah, if you choose features that nobody cares about, then nobody will
care whether the package
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
After all this discussion, what would benefit me most in choosing my
next template system would be a concise central repository of the
features benefits for the major template systems (TT, Apache::ASP,
Embperl, Mason, HTML::Template come to mind
PROTECTED] Date 14:54:16 28 July
2000
To: modperl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Simon Wilcox/BASE/WilliamsLea)
Fax to:
Subject: Feature sets [was Re: Templating System]
After all this discussion, what would benefit me most in choosing my
next template system would
Simon,
You aren't the only one who was pleasantly surprised to come back to a
mailbox overflowing with messages on a topic near dear to my heart.
:-)
As for summarizing, I have some pretty good info already: a private
email from a user of embperl, Andy's post of TT, and Joshua pointed me
to
As for summarizing, I have some pretty good info already: a private
email from a user of embperl, Andy's post of TT, and Joshua pointed me
to Apache::ASP's website. I'll probably do some serious reading this
weekend and (hopefully) begin to sketch out the comparison. And yes,
help is always
Gerald Richter wrote:
As for summarizing, I have some pretty good info already: a private
email from a user of embperl, Andy's post of TT, and Joshua pointed me
to Apache::ASP's website. I'll probably do some serious reading this
weekend and (hopefully) begin to sketch out the
Vivek had an excellent suggestion in private email: put together a list
of features and let the developers check off the options their system
supports. My biggest question is who comes up with the feature list in
the first place?
I would suggest it the other way round. Put together what you
Gerald Richter wrote:
Vivek had an excellent suggestion in private email: put together a list
of features and let the developers check off the options their system
supports. My biggest question is who comes up with the feature list in
the first place?
I would suggest it the other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drew Taylor) wrote:
Gerald Richter wrote:
Vivek had an excellent suggestion in private email: put together a list
of features and let the developers check off the options their system
supports. My biggest question is who comes up with the feature list in
the first
Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check. A
system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
supports it (can be switched on and off). This is often very helpful to
know, and might let one get a good sense of the differences
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Drew Taylor wrote:
Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check. A
system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
supports it (can be switched on and off). This is often very helpful to
know, and might
Matt Sergeant wrote:
This is getting too complex. Just do a couple of paragraphs on each, and
let everyone bang it out to a bit more than that. I guarantee that once
one template system designer says "Mine does X", the others will chime in
and say "Well mine can do X too, and optionally Y".
Drew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check. A
system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
supports it (can be switched on and off). This is often very helpful to
know, and might
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank D. Cringle) wrote:
Drew Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken Williams wrote:
I suggest having not just a simple checkmark, but a 3-way check. A
system either supports a feature, or it doesn't, or it *optionally*
supports it (can be switched on and off). This
59 matches
Mail list logo
