This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
To: <peter@peter.nyc.ny.us>, <modperl@apache.org>
From: "Perrin Harkins" <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 15:20:45 -0400
> yes, i have *yet another* templating mechanism for
> mod_perl, and i'd like to add it to CPAN if there are
> no major objections.
I hate to be a naysayer, but this doesn't look sufficiently different from
the other options to merit adding it to CPAN. The trouble is, there are
already too many of these and it looks an awful lot like Apache::ePerl, or
Text::Template. At the moment you may think there's a need for it because
it's simpler and smaller, but it will almost certainly grow over time.
If you look at the other modules and still think what you have is truly
different, please elaborate a little on why. No one here is actually going
to stop you from posting it to CPAN, but I will try to talk you out of it if
there's no clear reason to prefer this over other tools. I mean, just look
at the train wreck you get back from this:
http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=module&query=template
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>, Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
From: <peter@peter.nyc.ny.us>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 17:17:27 -0400 (EDT)
> I hate to be a naysayer, but this doesn't look sufficiently different from
> the other options to merit adding it to CPAN.
hi, thanks for your comments. i was expecting some such
naysaying, and understand your point. but, i still
disagree and think that simplicity *is* a valid
difference. i had looked at many other modules, and i
know other people who have as well but want a simpler
alternative.
most of the mod_perl/template packages out there are
not basic building blocks-- they lie in some
uncomfortable area between building blocks and full
content-management systems. i don't mean to knock them
at all, but for some people's needs these are way to
complex and bloated.
> The trouble is, there are already too many of these
> and it looks an awful lot like Apache::ePerl, or
> Text::Template.
Text::Template probably is the most similar existing
package, but it is not made for mod_perl. someone well-
versed in mod_perl could build a mod_perl wrapper of it
fairly quickly, but they or especially someone new to
mod_perl shouldn't have to. (i don't know of any such
wrapper existing in CPAN...)
if i'm not mistaken, Apache::ePerl builds a new
interpreter, which also seems like overkill for many
needs. (i'd like to try it out, but it won't compile
for lack of perl >=5.003-- i'm using 5.6.1 :). i want a
perl-only implementation, that doesn't need a new c lib.
> At the moment you may think there's a need for it
> because it's simpler and smaller, but it will
> almost certainly grow over time.
i can't say that no features will ever be added, but i
think it is fair to say that it will always remain much
lighter and smaller. i will not add database access,
XML-hooks, or new syntax/tags, and it will always be a
straight perl implementation.
so, that's my elaboration. i really don't want to
create mess in CPAN and appreciate efforts to prevent
that, but imho this is a useful, non-superfluous
addition. if someone knows of something more similar,
or if there is no positive feedback, i will certainly
reconsider.
===
To: "'brian moseley '" <bcm@maz.org>,
From: Geoffrey Young <gyoung@laserlink.net>
Subject: RE: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:00:24 -0400
>-----Original Message-----
>From: brian moseley
>To: modperl@apache.org
>Sent: 7/7/01 5:34 PM
>Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
>
>On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 peter@peter.nyc.ny.us wrote:
>
>> Text::Template probably is the most similar existing
>> package, but it is not made for mod_perl. someone well-
>> versed in mod_perl could build a mod_perl wrapper of it
>> fairly quickly, but they or especially someone new to
>> mod_perl shouldn't have to. (i don't know of any such
>> wrapper existing in CPAN...)
>
>if such a wrapper did exist, would you use it? if it
>doesn't, why don't you write one yourself?
I actually use Text::Template for all my templating (sigh), and have such a
wrapper (save just a bit of custom code). I basically implement the HASH
version and use a PerlInitHandler to set up the substitutions using pnotes.
I can work it up into a more generic release if anyone is interested, but
using Text::Template is really incredibly simple and it's just a few lines
of code (and actually twice as long as it needs to be due to copious
debugging), so I really don't think a release is warranted.
In reality, I feel guilty every time I use it for not migrating to
TemplateToolkit or one of the other systems available.
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>, brian moseley <bcm@maz.org>
From: <peter@peter.nyc.ny.us>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 17:56:19 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, brian moseley wrote:
> if such a wrapper did exist, would you use it?
> if it doesn't, why don't you write one yourself?
maybe.
i did use Text::Template in the first iteration of
this, but it was considerably faster to parse the
templates internally. (i don't remember how much
faster, but something like 25% for a dumb, do-nothing
template.) it seemed worth the savings not to wrap it.
===
To: <peter@peter.nyc.ny.us>, <modperl@apache.org>
From: "Perrin Harkins" <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:10:55 -0400
> i had looked at many other modules, and i
> know other people who have as well but want a simpler
> alternative.
Simpler in terms of how quickly it can be learned? Text::Template and
Apache::ePerl are both pretty trivial. In fact, most of these packages are
pretty easy if you just want to use their basic features.
> most of the mod_perl/template packages out there are
> not basic building blocks-- they lie in some
> uncomfortable area between building blocks and full
> content-management systems.
There are templating modules, like Text::Template and Template Toolkit, and
then there are systems that tie those together with mod_perl and some basic
application architecture, like Embperl and Mason. Yours seems more like the
latter, but with fewer features.
> Text::Template probably is the most similar existing
> package, but it is not made for mod_perl. someone well-
> versed in mod_perl could build a mod_perl wrapper of it
> fairly quickly, but they or especially someone new to
> mod_perl shouldn't have to. (i don't know of any such
> wrapper existing in CPAN...)
Don't you think your time would be better spent writing that wrapper, and
getting it onto CPAN, than maintaining your own duplicate package?
Text::Template is very popular, and that means it's been well-debugged and
covers most of the things people are likely to need.
> if i'm not mistaken, Apache::ePerl builds a new
> interpreter, which also seems like overkill for many
> needs.
It's pretty easy to install, really. However, it's not very popular these
days because it doesn't have all the features people end up needing.
> i can't say that no features will ever be added, but i
> think it is fair to say that it will always remain much
> lighter and smaller.
All of these packages started out lighter and smaller. They grew because
people NEEDED these features. Any module will evolve to meet people's needs
or lose popularity, as ePerl has.
Please understand that my criticism is not personal or in any way implying
that your module is not well implemented. I've written templating modules
too, and I understand why people are tempted to do it: "I don't understand
why these have so many features. I just want something simple. I'll write
it myself." The thing is, there are _MANY_ simple templating modules on
CPAN. They usually don't catch on because they ultimately don't do enough
for real-world use.
I remember Randal posted his take on a templating module a few years ago.
It did pretty much the same things yours does, was only a few lines long,
and was very simple. You can find it in the mail archive here:
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/beldkhinfol/8ciuhsney0.fsf@gadge
t.cscaper.com.
I think it's very telling that he ultimately dropped it in favor of using
other tools like Mason and Template Toolkit.
If you're going to be at the upcoming Perl conference in San Diego, you
might enjoy my session called "Choosing a Perl Templating System." I'll be
surveying the popular options and explaining some of the things that
differentiate them.
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>
From: Todd Finney <tfinney@boygenius.com>
Subject: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 18:19:47 -0400
At 06:10 PM 7/7/01, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > if i'm not mistaken, Apache::ePerl builds a new
> > interpreter, which also seems like overkill for many
> > needs.
>
>It's pretty easy to install, really. However, it's not very popular
>these
>days because it doesn't have all the features people end up needing.
We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run into
something we needed of which it was not capable. What are you
thinking of?
I'm not trying to start a holy war - embperl is darn nifty, and I
haven't used any of the other packages enough to have a solid opinion
of them. Right tool for the job, use what's comfortable, blah blah
blah.
ePerl is butt-simple to install, and a snap to learn ("put your perl in
<? here !>"). We've been using it for ~4 years (I think), and have
never seen a problem with it. IIRC, according to the various
benchmarks that bounce around periodically, it's not as fast as some of
the other packages, but that's never been an issue for us.
===
To: "Perrin Harkins" <perrin@elem.com>
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: 07 Jul 2001 15:52:40 -0700
>>>>> "Perrin" == Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com> writes:
Perrin> I remember Randal posted his take on a templating module a few
Perrin> years ago. It did pretty much the same things yours does, was
Perrin> only a few lines long, and was very simple. You can find it
Perrin> in the mail archive here:
Perrin> http://forum.swarthmore.edu/epigone/modperl/beldkhinfol/8ciuhsney0.fsf@gadge
Perrin> t.cscaper.com. I think it's very telling that he ultimately
Perrin> dropped it in favor of using other tools like Mason and
Perrin> Template Toolkit.
Yes. Writing a templating system in Perl is trivial. Writing a
*useful* templating system in Perl is demonstratably hard.
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>
From: brian moseley <bcm@maz.org>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
On 7 Jul 2001, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Yes. Writing a templating system in Perl is trivial.
> Writing a *useful* templating system in Perl is
> demonstratably hard.
unless you keep application features in a separate layer
from the templating system (eg the servlet api ;)
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: Ron Pero <rpero@boone.net>
Subject: The latest templating system: PSP in DDJ
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 21:30:27 -0400
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
includes many JSP-like features and, most importantly, custom tag support.
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..."
And, in the tradition of TMTOWTDI, especially in the field of templating
systems, the author adds this:
"Note that there is also an open-source project that is also called Perl
Server Pages (http://psp.sourceforge.net/). However, there is no connection
between that project and the one I present here."
===
To: Ron Pero <rpero@boone.net>, <modperl@apache.org>
From: Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: The latest templating system: PSP in DDJ
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 01:01:08 -0400
on 7/7/01 9:30 PM, Ron Pero at rpero@boone.net 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:
> "PSP is modeled after JSP. It is neither an ASP nor a JSP port. PSP
> includes many JSP-like features and, most importantly, custom tag support.
> 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..."
Good grief! This sounds exactly like Apache::ASP with its XMLSubs feature.
I give up.
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>
From: brian moseley <bcm@maz.org>
Subject: Re: The latest templating system: PSP in DDJ
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 00:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
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.
===
To: brian moseley <bcm@maz.org>, <modperl@apache.org>
From: Gunther Birznieks <gunther@extropia.com>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:46:51 +0800
At 06:16 PM 7/7/2001 -0700, brian moseley wrote:
>On 7 Jul 2001, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Yes. Writing a templating system in Perl is trivial.
> > Writing a *useful* templating system in Perl is
> > demonstratably hard.
>
>unless you keep application features in a separate layer
>from the templating system (eg the servlet api ;)
I think it is still quite difficult. Even if you have servlets, for
example, adding JSPs was quite a task. At issue is providing a minimal API
yet still allow the templates to do things that weren't originally intended.
In addition one of the criteria for "useful" to me is "fast". If the
template system is slow, it's quite annoying. However, this goes against
other people's ideas of "useful" being "full featured". As Steven Wright
says (paraphrased) if you had everything where would you put it?
So to make something that is powerful yet fast is quite the challenge. And
then there are architectural tradeoffs as to the type of application that
the template is being used for. Transactions? Portal based? Integrating
many apps together? Standalone?
===
To: <tfinney@boygenius.com>, <modperl@apache.org>
From: Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: RE: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:40:15 -0400
> We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run into
> something we needed of which it was not capable. What are you
> thinking of?
It's not a question of it not being capable, it's just that most people seem
to choose one of the more full-featured tools. There's lots of talk on the
list about Apache::ASP, Embperl, Mason, etc., but not much about ePerl.
(Maybe I should do some research in the mail archives and graph the results.
Sounds like a magazine column...) Also, I think Text::Template stole some
users away from ePerl.
Like SSI, ePerl is perfect for some people who just want a simple solution
that stays out of their way.
Also, I believe that security issue Ged referred to was fixed by the author.
- Perrin
===
To: Gunther Birznieks <gunther@extropia.com>, brian moseley
<bcm@maz.org>,
From: Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 14:44:44 -0400
on 7/8/01 2:46 AM, Gunther Birznieks at gunther@extropia.com wrote:
> In addition one of the criteria for "useful" to me is "fast". If the
> template system is slow, it's quite annoying. However, this goes against
> other people's ideas of "useful" being "full featured". As Steven Wright
> says (paraphrased) if you had everything where would you put it?
I think this is more of an issue with CGI. All of the popular tools are
fast enough under mod_perl that they're very unlikely to be your bottleneck.
It's far more likely to be database work or IPC of some kind that slows down
an application.
Under CGI, the caching schemes of many of these systems don't work. That
does make a difference.
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: Todd Finney <tfinney@boygenius.com>
Subject: Re: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:02:43 -0400
At 07:47 AM 7/8/01, Ged Haywood wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Todd Finney wrote:
>
> > We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run
> into
> > something we needed of which it was not capable.
>
>Didn't I read somewhere that there were security concerns?
There was a fix made in 1998 regarding QUERY_STRING, but I think that
was the last time anything like that came up. I'm not even sure
there's been a new release since then; I suppose that could mean either
Ralf has lost interest in it, or it's just 'done'. It's probably a
little bit of both.
There's a patch to make it work with 5.6 floating around, but I haven't
seen anything else new in some time.
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>
From: Todd Finney <tfinney@boygenius.com>
Subject: RE: ePerl (fragment of Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate)
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 15:16:04 -0400
At 02:40 PM 7/8/01, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > We use ePerl for a fair number of things, and I have yet to run
> into
> > something we needed of which it was not capable. What are you
> > thinking of?
>
>It's not a question of it not being capable, it's just that most
>people seem
>to choose one of the more full-featured tools.
Yea, I'm a glutton for punishment. :/ I don't necessarily mind, though
- reinventing the wheel periodically is a good learning experience.
>There's lots of talk on the list about Apache::ASP, Embperl, Mason,
>etc., but not much about ePerl. (Maybe I should do some research in
>the mail archives and graph the results. Sounds like a magazine
>column...) Also, I think Text::Template stole some users away from
>ePerl.
It probably doesn't help that ePerl isn't even listed at
perl.apache.org with the others.
>Like SSI, ePerl is perfect for some people who just want a simple
>solution
>that stays out of their way.
...and people that are too lazy to bother remembering the difference
between [+ +], [- -], and [! !].
===
To: Geoffrey Young <gyoung@laserlink.net>
From: Thomas Eibner <thomas@stderr.net>
Subject: Re: Apache::SimpleTemplate
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:37:45 +0200
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 06:00:24PM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> I actually use Text::Template for all my templating (sigh), and have such a
> wrapper (save just a bit of custom code). I basically implement the HASH
> version and use a PerlInitHandler to set up the substitutions using pnotes.
> I can work it up into a more generic release if anyone is interested, but
> using Text::Template is really incredibly simple and it's just a few lines
> of code (and actually twice as long as it needs to be due to copious
> debugging), so I really don't think a release is warranted.
>
> In reality, I feel guilty every time I use it for not migrating to
> TemplateToolkit or one of the other systems available.
Why feel guilty for using something that works for you? I use
CGI::FastTemplate in most the stuff I write now and I'm quite happy with
it, since it gets the job done. I wrote my own wrappers around this
module too, like you and it works pretty well with the rest of the
framework I use.
===
To: Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
From: Joshua Chamas <joshua@chamas.com>
Subject: Re: The latest templating system: PSP in DDJ
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:56:27 -0700
Perrin Harkins wrote:
>
> on 7/7/01 9:30 PM, Ron Pero at rpero@boone.net 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:
> > "PSP is modeled after JSP. It is neither an ASP nor a JSP port. PSP
> > includes many JSP-like features and, most importantly, custom tag support.
> > 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..."
>
> Good grief! This sounds exactly like Apache::ASP with its XMLSubs feature.
> I give up.
All Andy Yuen, author of PSP, had to do was ask that Apache::ASP
get ported to run under old school CGI... I already have it
mostly working, just never had incentive to finish the job.
Maybe I'll finish that off now that I've seen lack of ASP's
CGI support posted in an article :)
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: Perrin Harkins <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Perl Templating Guide, v 0.9
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:15:53 -0700
http://perl.apache.org/features/tmpl-cmp.html
The article "Choosing a Templating System" is now available at the above
URL. This is the same material I presented at the O'Reilly conference,
but a bit less rushed. It gives an overview of currently available
templating tools and their basic features.
This version is bound to have some bugs and general foolishness in it,
so please send me an e-mail if you spot anything.
Some ideas for future versions:
- Code sample for each system
- Links to other articles for each system
- More complete benchmark information
- Recommended practices for using templates in general
Slouching towards 1.0,
Perrin
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>
Subject: Yet another...
Date: 10 Aug 2001 10:18:55 +0000
http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=HTML-Processor-0.01
I don't know whether to laugh or cry :-)
===
To: Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: 10 Aug 2001 05:06:34 -0700
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org> writes:
Matt> http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=HTML-Processor-0.01
Matt> I don't know whether to laugh or cry :-)
A rite of passage with C is to write a sorting routine or
linear search.
A rite of passage with Perl appears to be writing a templating
system.
The difference with C is that C doesn't have the CPAN. :)
===
To: <modperl@apache.org>
From: "Perrin Harkins" <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:54:42 -0400
> A rite of passage with Perl appears to be writing a templating
> system.
And a database abstraction layer. And a session tracker. And a persistent
hash.
===
To: Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: 10 Aug 2001 07:41:06 -0700
>>>>> "Randal" == Randal L Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> writes:
>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org> writes:
Matt> http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=HTML-Processor-0.01
Matt> I don't know whether to laugh or cry :-)
Cry some more. From the same batch, I see that Template::TPL has also
been uploaded. Not only Yet Another System, but something that is now
invading the Template::* namespace owned by Andy.
===
To: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz),
From: Robert Landrum <rlandrum@capitoladvantage.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:03:21 -0400
At 7:41 AM -0700 8/10/01, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Randal" == Randal L Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> writes:
>
>>>>>> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org> writes:
>Matt> http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=HTML-Processor-0.01
>Matt> I don't know whether to laugh or cry :-)
>
>Cry some more. From the same batch, I see that Template::TPL has also
>been uploaded. Not only Yet Another System, but something that is now
>invading the Template::* namespace owned by Andy.
How is HTML::Processor different from HTML::Template? Ummm the do
the same exact thing... and HTML::Template is cleaner.
Some people will never learn......
Robert Landrum
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: emarkert@netscape.net ( )
Subject: RE: Re: Yet another...
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:09:20 -0400
Robert Landrum <rlandrum@capitoladvantage.com> wrote:
>How is HTML::Processor different from HTML::Template? Ummm the do
>the same exact thing... and HTML::Template is cleaner.
>
>Some people will never learn......
>
>Robert Landrum
Well, that's the point of the original posts... Instead of
focusing their efforts on improving the already existing,
kickass, packages people go off on their own and create
something similar to what exists and then, what's worse,
they post it to CPAN...
I guess they can't read - I seem to recall a document that
politely asks people to take a look at what's available on
CPAN first before creating something in an effort to avoid
duplicate work.
===
To: modperl@apache.org
From: Thomas Eibner <thomas@stderr.net>
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:33:20 +0200
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 07:41:06AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Randal" == Randal L Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> writes:
>
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org> writes:
> Matt> http://search.cpan.org/search?dist=HTML-Processor-0.01
> Matt> I don't know whether to laugh or cry :-)
>
> Cry some more. From the same batch, I see that Template::TPL has also
> been uploaded. Not only Yet Another System, but something that is now
> invading the Template::* namespace owned by Andy.
How can a namespace be totally owned by someone? You're saying that
these modules are invading Andy Wardley's "owned" namespace then too:
Template::Plugin::DBI (Simon Matthews)
Template::Plugin::Java::* (Rafael Kitover)
e t c . . .
I know it doesn't have anything to do with Template::TPL, which probably
isn't a plugin for Template anyway. But I hardly you can generalize and
say that Andy owns the namespace. Even more so, does LDS own CGI::*? or
Doug is the only one that can put stuff in Apache::*?
(To Andy: I like the effort you've put into the Template:: namespace, so
it's not a rant about that)
===
To: "Thomas Eibner" <thomas@stderr.net>,
<modperl@apache.org>
From: "Perrin Harkins" <perrin@elem.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:56:41 -0400
> How can a namespace be totally owned by someone?
You're being too literal. It's not that Andy has to personally approve
every module starting with Template::, but rather that it's rude to step on
the namespace of an existing (and popular) CPAN module without speaking to
the people responsible for that module.
> Doug is the only one that can put stuff in Apache::*?
No, but it's common courtesy for someone who wants to put an Apache:: module
on CPAN to first ask on this list to see if the name will cause conflicts.
The goal is to make modules that are easy to share.
See http://www.cpan.org/modules/04pause.html#namespace for more.
===
To: emarkert@netscape.net ( )
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Yet another...
Date: 10 Aug 2001 18:35:24 -0700
>>>>> "You" == <emarkert@netscape.net> writes:
You> Well, that's the point of the original posts... Instead of
You> focusing their efforts on improving the already existing,
You> kickass, packages people go off on their own and create something
You> similar to what exists and then, what's worse, they post it to
You> CPAN...
You> I guess they can't read - I seem to recall a document that
You> politely asks people to take a look at what's available on CPAN
You> first before creating something in an effort to avoid duplicate
You> work.
But it's so EASY to create a templating module in perl. Ooh, oops, I
need a syntax for "if". And oops, I guess I also need a syntax to
repeat this HTML over this list of items. Oooh, I guess I need
variables and a way to manage them. And little by little, they all
end up looking like Template Toolkit, but with a horribly misdesigned
syntax. :)
===