Re: IT[X] fork, round 2

> Okay, here is my summary for the first round of discussion and some answers > and clarifications. You just don't get the point. I really _like_ your work! But without single patches we can't accept your work (IMHO) as a _replacement_ for IT. > 2) I cannot prove that my sources are _always_ BC, it is ridiculous > (especially when we have neither specification nor regression tests). Yeah, and because of this Dilemma, i think, we can't accept your work as a replacement ;-( > 3) <!-- INCLUDE --> is in my fork now. Yet it does not mix with caching, > just like callback functions. This is still somewhat a hack. > It _can_ be redone in a much cleaner way that will allow caching of > INCLUDE'd files as well, but this will take a non-insignificant amount > of time to do. > Christian, can you please test my classes now? I would go for the clean way. Your new features have to work in all templates and not just in a few. Users will be confused and maybe even pissed off, when they notice it too late. > 4) There were no other _concrete_ mentions of incompatibility. Here is one > to whet your appetite: > > template: > Bugwards compatibility test > <!-- BEGIN outer_block --> > {outer} > <!-- BEGIN inner_block --> > {outer}: {inner} > <!-- END inner_block --> > <!-- END outer_block --> > > code: > $tpl->setVariable(array( > 'inner' => 'Inner block variable', > 'outer' => 'Outer block variable' > )); > > $tpl->show(); > > Stock IT outputs > Bugwards compatibility test > > Outer block variable > > : Inner block variable > > My version > Bugwards compatibility test > > Outer block variable > > Outer block variable: Inner block variable > > > Which one is broken is, of course, open for discussion... Thats a perfect example. This is a real BC break, even if your version is the better one IMHO. Could you introduce a compatibilty flag? I want to be honest and remember I am just a IT user: When reading your list of changes, I think you created the better IT. Just the replacing is not good IMHO. Smaller patches which could be reviewed more easily would be _great_. This has nothing todo with me not liking you ... I just want the best solution for the userbase. Christian Dickmann