Le lundi, 28 juil 2003, à 21:27 Europe/Paris, Jean-Michel Hiver a écrit
:
Also, with TT you have to use the filter 'html' to XML encode your
variables. Petal does it by default, and you need to use the TALES
'structure' keyword to NOT encode.
You don't *have* to use the 'html' filter in TT. I wro
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Aleksandr Guidrevitch wrote:
> May be I'm a bit late here... But is there any sence in artifical XML
> templating languages since there is XSLT ? Just wonder whether there are
> cons other than long learning curve and performance issues ?
Well, in the case of just TAL/Petal,
Hi, All
May be I'm a bit late here... But is there any sence in artifical XML
templating languages since there is XSLT ? Just wonder whether there are
cons other than long learning curve and performance issues ?
Alex Gidrevich
I suggest y'all check out Tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
to see a really nice happy medium. It uses a templating language
similar to TAL but much more flexible (and useful, in my mind) than
rigid XML. All its templates can be used in things like Dreamweaver
and GoLive with getti
> If you like a more straightforward approach, TT also lets you write:
>
>
> $some_content
>
>
> See, I knew there would be something that we would agree on! :-)
:)
> > But at the risk of breaking compatibility with some validators / XML
> > tools / etc.
>
> It still looks like
Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> something like:
>
>
>
>
>
> Which is completely impossible to validate and IMHO very hard to read.
Agreed. The following is easier to read, IMHO, and is also valid XML markup.
[% some_content %]
>dir="ltr"
> petal:attributes="ltr language_
Matt Sergeant wrote:
> At it's core, XML is a very elegant syntax for defining a rich dataset
> of nodes
It's a syntax for defining a dataset of nodes that all conform to XML's
ideas about what a dataset of nodes looks like. I'm not convinced about
rich or elegant.
:-)
> > and you find your
emantics of your
> complex directives into the limited syntax of element-name-and-attributes.
> The language becomes contrived and clumsy as a result of trying to satisfy
> a purity of design.
This I can agree with, having written my own templating system because I
didn't like XSLT&#
soning behind it.
Maybe... It's a little bit strange when you get started with it, but
it becomes clear and very elegant quite quickly. For example with a
traditional mini-language kind of templating system, you might have
something like:
Which is completely impossible to validate and
Jean-Michel Hiver wrote:
> Because Petal templates have to be well-formed XML,
This is the sticking point for me, I'm afraid. I can see some of the
benefits of having templates written in well-formed XML markup, but I
can't see past the drawbacks.
XML syntax is crufty at best. It requires
> > First of all, it is an implementation of TAL. TAL is a very clever open
> > specification for WYSIWYG-friendly templates written by the Zope people.
>
> Do you have a URL for further reading on TAL?
Yep.
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ZPT/TAL
> > Petal has an active community a
uses on web
application state management.
CGI::Application doesn't try to bolt on anything else. The developer
can choose their favorite modules for templating system, database
interface, object persistence, session management, etc. CGI-App is
specifically made to allow developers to choo
>Do you have a URL for further reading on TAL?
I found one:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/DevSite/Projects/ZPT/TAL
Regards,
Kitch
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jean-Michel Hiver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:46 PM
> First of all, it is an implementation of TAL. TAL is a very clever open
> specification for WYSIWYG-friendly templates written by the Zope people.
D
> I know everybody's defending their fave templating system... I guess I
> can't resist: I have to jump in and defend my baby :)
>
> So why is Petal better than anything else?
Oops, I got a bit carried away...
As a side note, Petal is probably not "better" th
experience).
I know everybody's defending their fave templating system... I guess I
can't resist: I have to jump in and defend my baby :)
So why is Petal better than anything else?
First of all, it is an implementation of TAL. TAL is a very clever open
specification for WYSIWYG-friendly tem
Dave Rolsky wrote:
There's a fine book about it.
www.masonbook.com
Just an unbiased opinion ;)
Hey, I'd be happy to write a book about OpenInteract ;-)
Chris
--
Chris Winters ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
Eric wrote:
That was really interesting to look at. OpenInteract is really
impressive. I guess there is always a cost to having a big
do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew
my head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more
than what CGI::Ap
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Eric wrote:
> do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew my
> head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more than
There's a fine book about it.
www.masonbook.com
Just an unbiased opinion ;)
-dave
/*=
Hi,
That was really interesting to look at. OpenInteract is really impressive.
I guess there is always a cost to having a big
do it all type of system. That is what made me avoid Mason, it just blew my
head off for complexity. Now it is true, I am looking for a bit more than
what CGI::Applicati
> "Dave" == Dave Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and
Dave> HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a
Dave> software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and
Dave> distributed as a
> You missed it:
> http://search.cpan.org/author/SAMTREGAR/HTML-Template-2.6/Temp
late.pm#NOTES
Ah. When the section begins "If you're a fanatic about valid HTML" it
becomes more clear why I missed that. :-)
Thanks,
Fran
I'm curious as to why the combination of CGI::Application and
HTML::Template hasn't taken off ... CGI::Application seems to allow a
software developer to create an entire CGI app that can be stored and
distributed as a module on CPAN, but only a couple such app/modules
have been so added.
Especial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Change that to:
You mean don't you? Or did I miss the
secret stealth hide-your-tags-in-html-comments feature? :-)
You missed it:
http://search.cpan.org/author/SAMTREGAR/HTML-Template-2.6/Template.pm#NOTES
- Perrin
Hauck, William B. wrote:
Hi,
I'll be adding a function to
And then you'll be adding a function to..., and then possibly a function
to..., and then you'll need it to...
Pretty soon, you will have spent hundreds of hours developing a
templating system that you throw away in
What you have created for your own use is almost exactly what HTML::Template does. We have used it for a year without any major problems between us and the HTML designer. Its fast and supports loops and if statements. Its probably worth your while to check it out.
As far as XSLT goes, we're
> Change that to:
>
>
You mean don't you? Or did I miss the
secret stealth hide-your-tags-in-html-comments feature? :-)
-Fran
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Hauck, William B. wrote:
> What i've done is just use completely external html files with
> html-compliant comments indicating the data field. (example ). My application just reads in the html
> on startup and does a series of substition statements over the file
> as necessar
k Galbraith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: templating system opinions (axkit?)
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> Anyone on this list use AxKit? I'm curious how it pans out.
>
> I like the idea of XSLT/XML, though I find myself trying to read between
> the li
Hi Matt,
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> The main reason I like AxKit is it prevents me from screwing up [snip]
> I just write straight perl code. I barely notice that I'm using XML.
Can you give us in a couple of sentences your take on the state of XML
in general and AxKit in parti
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> Anyone on this list use AxKit? I'm curious how it pans out.
>
> I like the idea of XSLT/XML, though I find myself trying to read between
> the lines of hype vs. something that's actually very useful. I don't know,
> so I don't have any opinions. I do
hi
( 03.07.21 17:04 -0500 ) Nigel Hamilton:
> At Turbo10 we went for a strict 'no functional elements' in the
> template approach.
this seems like you're placing a technical limit on your solution. why
wouldn't you use the technologies that will solve your problem the best
instead of constraining
Hi Jesse,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Erlbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 8:50 PM
> To: 'Patrick Galbraith'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: templating system opinions (axkit?)
>
>
> Hi Patrick --
>
> &
> > Just wondering what the best templating system is to use
> > and/or learn.
>
> I'm just wondering why no one recommended Embperl. Like Mason, it's more
> than a templating system, but I find it's inheritance features great.
I too have found templat
Perrin Harkins wrote:
The one thing about TT was that I don't know if I really liked how it
had a different syntax than perl. Plus, as far as performance, we did
some specific coding to make it faster for Slash so our templates would
be in the DB.
That's an anti-optimization. Filesystems are fa
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 18:37, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> The one thing about TT was that I don't know if I really liked how it
> had a different syntax than perl. Plus, as far as performance, we did
> some specific coding to make it faster for Slash so our templates would
> be in the DB.
That's
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Sam Tregar wrote:
> My impression is that Mason doesn't get much advantage from clients
> that only use part of the Mason system. I imagine that one of the
> reasons that the Mason workalike I built for Bricolage is faster than
> Mason is that it only implements the functiona
Perrin Harkins wrote:
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 12:22, Kip Hampton wrote:
Why choose one when you can have 'em all? :-)
Well, no offense to AxKit, but having multiple templating systems in a
single project is something that I specifically work to avoid. It
complicates things and typically hurts pe
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be too sure. I implemented a lot of that stuff to add
> > HTML::Template support to Bricolage and it's still much faster than
> > Mason.
>
> "A lot" as in _all_ of it, or a "lot" as in autohandlers
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 12:14, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> I get so tired of Java types talking about how "perl is just a scripting
> language.. it's not an application platform/server like
> Dynamo/WebSpere/". I even tried to crack
> a particular Orielly java book and was turned off on a statement
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 12:22, Kip Hampton wrote:
> And don't forget that, with AxKit, you can use Apache::ASP, Mason, or
> any Apache::Filter-aware handler to provide content for AxKit to
> transform and TT2 as a transformational language. Oh, and there's
> XPathScript, too, which, although its o
if CSS wasn't
>very successful, as if the world needed another templating system, XSLT
>seems to have been invented to take the creative work of designing web
>sites out of the hands of HTML designers, and put it in the hands of
>XPath programmers. You know. Programmers who are r
Anyone on this list use AxKit? I'm curious how it pans out.
I used it for http://www.nikki-site.com (sorry, Japanese-only site).
This site uses exactly 4 pure-mod_perl handlers, and everything else
eventually goes through AxKit (excuse the site design, as far as
development goes that is a one-
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> > OTOH, if you were to try to replicate some of Mason's more powerful
> > features with H::T, like autohandlers, inheritance, etc., then I'm
> > sure that'd bring H::T's speed down to Mason's level ;)
>
> I wouldn
The upside is that it's
between four and eight times faster than HTML::Template, which makes
it the fastest templating system by a large margin.
-sam
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
Hi Patrick --
I like the idea of XSLT/XML, though I find myself trying to
read between
the lines of hype vs. something that's actually very useful.
I don't know,
so I don't have any opinions. I do know I'd like to use
XSLT/XML so as to
have a project to use it for, henc
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> I'm guessing they use it for IMDB, although they may have other
> projects as well that use it. I do know that their core app is
> C++/apache, with some sort of perl glue to talk to the app.
I believe IMDB uses mod_perl, but I don't know about Mason
I recently found one good use for not bashing XSLT right away. We were using JUnit
and JUnitReport to do unit testing and reporting for our java using the Ant build
tool. JUnit runs tests and can generate the output to xml. JUnitReport uses xslt to
transform them to websites.
I simply hacked
have a project to use it for, hence learn it.
It's mostly hype in my experience. And not even very useful hype, like
Java or PHP, which are actually real things which people might want to
use.
XSLT seems to be XML geeks' answer to CSS+templating. As if CSS wasn't
very successful
Anyone on this list use AxKit? I'm curious how it pans out.
I like the idea of XSLT/XML, though I find myself trying to read between
the lines of hype vs. something that's actually very useful. I don't know,
so I don't have any opinions. I do know I'd like to use XSLT/XML so as to
have a projec
I'm guessing they use it for IMDB, although they may have other
projects as well that use it. I do know that their core app is
C++/apache, with some sort of perl glue to talk to the app.
Nice that they are such an apache/perl/OS house considering they're here
in Seattle, mere miles from Redmond
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Drew Taylor wrote:
> I personally have not seen an "official" announcement, but if you look
> at all their postings on jobs.perl.org you'll notice that nearly every
> one of them mentions Mason. I'm sure Dave will have more to say on the
> subject... :-)
Not too much more. B
Matt Sergeant wrote:
(you can of course use XSLT in AxKit :-)
And don't forget that, with AxKit, you can use Apache::ASP, Mason, or
any Apache::Filter-aware handler to provide content for AxKit to
transform and TT2 as a transformational language. Oh, and there's
XPathScript, too, which, althoug
I wanted to add that you *can* use Mason for MVC type programming. I do
that on my current big project, www.better-investing.org, in the admin
areas. I have a controller index.html page which chooses what component
to run based on a run mode, just like CGI::Application, but then gives
me all
> In a good OO system with objects
> representing the
> data model, I found it exhausting to use H::T when I could
> just to this
> in TT:
>
> [% user.name %]
>
>
> Am I just being stupid, or are there better ways of doing
> these things
> in H::T?
I'm a little late to the dance but I ge
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
Dave Rolsky writes:
Sure, amazon.com among them.
Amazon.com uses Mason? Why have I not heard of this before?
I personally have not seen an "official" announcement, but if you look
at all their postings on jobs.perl.org you'll notice that nearly every
one of them mentions Mas
Hi Dave --
Dave Rolsky writes:
> > Mason isn't fast. It is, however, fast enough for high
> volume sites -
> > that I will assert.
>
> Sure, amazon.com among them.
Amazon.com uses Mason? Why have I not heard of this before?
-Jesse-
On Monday, Jul 21, 2003, at 02:23 Europe/London, Dave Rolsky wrote:
All of this said, what is the most commonly used system out there?
The biggest players are Mason and Template Toolkit, judging from "big
companies" that have used them, as well as job posting.
HTML::Template,
Embperl, and Apache
> Just wondering what the best templating system is to use
> and/or learn.
Hi,
I'm just wondering why no one recommended Embperl. Like Mason, it's more
than a templating system, but I find it's inheritance features great.
I'm using it for a personal project and h
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> Mason isn't fast. It is, however, fast enough for high volume sites -
> that I will assert.
Sure, amazon.com among them.
> From my view, the utility of autohandlers and dhandlers, in terms of
> code written vs. cost and time, is an enormous win. Add t
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> I've been working at Classmates.com for a couple months contracting, and
> they use Text::Forge.
>
> I've been impressed by the performance, and wish it was a big player.
> Part of the reason it isn't is guys like me should contribute to it and
> mak
e:
Hi Chris, Patrick --
I post on this topic with some reluctance. Asking which templating
system is best is like asking which operating system is best -- or which
political party is best (or political system, I suppose). It's Jihad,
baby!
OTOH, I've never met a flamethrower I didn&#x
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> Actually, H::T is almost certainly _much_ faster and less RAM-intensive
> than Mason, at least when you measure the time it takes to serve a single
> page/component. OTOH, if you were to try to replicate some of Mason's
> more powerful features with H::T,
>> Barry Hoggard wrote:
>> I used to use HTML::Template for projects, but I moved to
>> Template::Toolkit because I felt the former's syntax was just too
>> limited. I know we want to separate code and logic, but H::T
>> keeps me
[skip]
JE> Jesse Erlbaum
JE> Programmer: Get object, Get objec
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> H::T is much more programmer-centric. In a lot of contexts, that makes
> sense. Informally (as in, I haven't done a systematic comparison), it is
> also faster than Mason. Mason isn't slow, but if you need every last
> gram of performance, well, you pro
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
>
> > TT was ok, but it did use a bunch of ram ;)
>
> So does Mason. HTML::Template is no doubt much leaner, but it's also lean
> on features. Nothing wrong with that if it suits your needs, though.
>
> Mo
> Just wondering what the best templating system is to use
> and/or learn.
Hi,
I'm just wondering why no one recommended Embperl. Like Mason, it's more
than a templating system, but I find it's inheritance features great.
I'm using it for a personal project and h
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
Hey Ken --
Search the guide:
http://perl.apache.org/search/swish.cgi?query=template&sbm=&submit=sear
ch
I'm deeply amused that there are nearly as many articles about
templating systems on perl.apache.org (30) as there are templating
modules on CPAN!
The search shows matchi
Hey Barry!
> I used to use HTML::Template for projects, but I moved to
> Template::Toolkit because I felt the former's syntax was just too
> limited. I know we want to separate code and logic, but H::T
> keeps me
> from even referencing the attribute of an object. You can't say
>
>
>
> an
Jesse Erlbaum wrote:
The big players are Template::Toolkit and HTML::Template. It's no
secret that I'm a fan of HTML::Template -- Sam and I worked together
when he wrote it, and my module, CGI::Application, uses it out of the
box (although it does support TT).
I use HTML::Template because desi
> "Stas" == Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stas> While Andy is working on it, you can read a TT for mod_perl chapter in
Stas> "Practical mod_perl", written by Andy as well! (http://modperlbook.org)
Man, that guy is *everywhere*!
:-)
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Se
on or mod_perl
handlers) combined with a true templating system, such as TT or
HTML::Template, makes the templates subservient to the application
logic.
This is the opposite of server page systems which put the template in
change of choosing functionality. In the latter, an HTTP request goes
to a
Hey Ken --
> Search the guide:
>
>http://perl.apache.org/search/swish.cgi?query=template&sbm=&submit=sear
ch
I'm deeply amused that there are nearly as many articles about
templating systems on perl.apache.org (30) as there are templating
modules on CPAN!
TTYL,
-Jesse-
--
Jesse Erlbaum
Hi Chris, Patrick --
I post on this topic with some reluctance. Asking which templating
system is best is like asking which operating system is best -- or which
political party is best (or political system, I suppose). It's Jihad,
baby!
OTOH, I've never met a flamethrower I d
Chris Devers wrote:
[...]
A little bird tells me that TT is about to get an O'Reilly book as well,
though it's not on their upcoming titles page (yet).
While Andy is working on it, you can read a TT for mod_perl chapter in
"Practical mod_perl", written by Andy as well! (http://modperlbook.org)
__
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> TT was ok, but it did use a bunch of ram ;)
So does Mason. HTML::Template is no doubt much leaner, but it's also lean
on features. Nothing wrong with that if it suits your needs, though.
Most Perl templating systems are probably slower and/or bul
TT was ok, but it did use a bunch of ram ;)
I gotta have something to counter PHP people with too ;)
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Chris
Devers wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I worked with TT when I was on the Slash team ;)
>
> Then why are you asking a question lik
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> Yeah, I worked with TT when I was on the Slash team ;)
Then why are you asking a question like this?? :)
--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/
Turing machine, n. [After Alan M. Turing (1912-1954), British
mathematici
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 17:23, Chris Devers wrote:
> > Correction: Bricolage is written in Mason, I believe. That's what the
> > Bricolage authors say at http://bricolage.cc/
>
> Hmm, so it does. I wonder where I got the idea that it was H::T based...
The data entry UI is in Mason, but it can optio
>
> Old, but still useful benchmarks if you're interested:
> http://www.chamas.com/bench/
>
> mark.
>
> On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:26, Ken Y. Clark wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:25:32 -0700
Thanks much,
Yeah, I worked with TT when I was on the Slash team ;)
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003,
Chris Devers wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Just wondering what the best templating system is to use and/or learn.
> >
> > I've briefly read up
Chris Devers sent the following bits through the ether:
> It's a pretty clever approach; I'd like to see something like this done
> with a Perl backend (I haven't really been keeping track of development,
> for all I know there already is a Perl backend...). Read more:
Your wish is my command. Wi
Sorry to cc: this to the list, but I stand corrected and might as well
mention that to the list :)
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Dave Baker wrote:
> Correction: Bricolage is written in Mason, I believe. That's what the
> Bricolage authors say at http://bricolage.cc/
Hmm, so it does. I wonder where I got
hamas.com/bench/
mark.
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:26, Ken Y. Clark wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Patrick Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: templ
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> Just wondering what the best templating system is to use and/or learn.
>
> I've briefly read up on the pros and cons of each, and am just wondering
> which one is the most widely _used_ and best to learn if you're wanting to
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Patrick Galbraith wrote:
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Patrick Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: templating system opinions
>
> Hi there,
>
> Just wondering what the best templating system is
Hi there,
Just wondering what the best templating system is to use and/or learn.
I've briefly read up on the pros and cons of each, and am just wondering
which one is the most widely _used_ and best to learn if you're wanting to
know something that there are jobs for.
thanks ;)
-
I think that a "templating system" is the core component of a CMS (content
management system).
Probably the right direction (for a good TS) is an engine like Axkit.
It support other templating system like ASP and Mason too.
It need more documentation and more real world examples and
(especially for those of us struggling to
choose a templating system) is anybody collecting URIs of articles which give
practical examples of using such systems? I'm thinking
of one-template-per-article style, so we can actually learn how to use them, rather
than a list of features.
Cheers
> What is needed, IMHO, is a clear
> framework,/description/phlogeny/geneology of perl templating systems.
I'm writing such a beast for TPC this month, and will publish it when it's
ready. I'm not covering every templating module on CPAN though, just the
ones that people seem to actually use bas
Ron Pero sent the following bits through the ether:
> Don't give up. What is needed, IMHO, is a clear
> framework,/description/phlogeny/geneology of perl templating systems.
FWIW, Greg McCarroll is writing an article for perl.com on a short
comparison of templating systems, and of course we'll h
At 01:01 AM 07/08/01 -0400, Perrin Harkins wrote:
>> The latter gives you the ability to develop custom tag modules to
>> encapsulate complex server-side behaviors and business rules into simple
>> XML-like elements that content developers can use.
>> PSP shares the same basic elements with JSP...
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> on 7/7/01 9:30 PM, Ron Pero at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Just received my issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal today, and one of the articles
> > is "A Tiny Perl Server Pages Engine". Pretty nifty.
> >
> > Read about it here:
> > http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0108/0108g/0
On Sunday 08 July 2001 03:30, Ron Pero wrote:
> Just received my issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal today, and one of the articles
> is "A Tiny Perl Server Pages Engine". Pretty nifty.
>
> Read about it here:
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0108/0108g/0108g.htm
Nifty indeed, if you're interested in su
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> Good grief! This sounds exactly like Apache::ASP with
> its XMLSubs feature.
except with asp you get the whole asp web application
environment as well.
on 7/7/01 9:30 PM, Ron Pero at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Just received my issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal today, and one of the articles
> is "A Tiny Perl Server Pages Engine". Pretty nifty.
>
> Read about it here:
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0108/0108g/0108g.htm
>
> Here is an excerpt:
> "P
Just received my issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal today, and one of the articles
is "A Tiny Perl Server Pages Engine". Pretty nifty.
Read about it here:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0108/0108g/0108g.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"PSP is modeled after JSP. It is neither an ASP nor a JSP port. PSP
include
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
> > But you forget about the benefits of the source code editing, which is
> > diff and tools working with it. Surely enough big editors support their
> > own diff formats and tools, but they aren't possessed by many people. And
> > with POD everybody has a text editor :)
>
> As with XML :)
But
Gunther Birznieks wrote:
>
> 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
> followed up by a fun anecdotal chapter about o
1 - 100 of 313 matches
Mail list logo
