Re: Re: Templates in PEAR
| From: | Justin Patrin | Date: | Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:25:37 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Templates in PEAR | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-29918@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
David Costa wrote:
On Jun 2, 2004, at 7:34 PM, Michael Wallner wrote:David, I think you've been getting the wrong idea here. This discussion is about an overall template solution which could, at some point in thefuture, *possibly* replace the other engines, at the discretion of the leads. No one is saying that we will 1) drop the current template systems or 2) force a merger. You've made your point about these things, but this isn't what is being discussed.Hi David Costa, you wrote:it is surely a good idea but as far as I know the current packages have some differences and they all have downloads. This leads me to believe that they have their own niche.right and remove the others ? very good idea...David, that's not the point. :) Just wanna be a lead is the wrong intention. I'm talking of the compound force of TPL devs to create highly versatile and modular template engine, allowing multiple approaches or whatever...If each current lead of the template engines that currently exists in pear are joining a team, nobody will be left out, if that is your fear.I have no fear ;) but I would see why a lead wouldn't want to merge his package with another one in the templates area. I think that templates are very different then, let's say, math or networking packages. Whilst the latest categories are mainly providing with a functionality (and the user at times doesn't really care as much) template engines are a category apart. If adopted the end user will spend a great deal of time with them. For instance, if I am using template Sigma or I used it for.. let's say 10 websites. It would take a major effort to adapt the sites using the "new" template we are talking about. Of course I could leave the site with the old, deprecated engine but.. Of course you can say that the old packages will not disappear, but still it wouldn't leave a good image of PEAR. Of course I am all for removing dead/zombie packages. But on templates, I don't see a case at the moment. I might be wrong, but this sounds mainly a lead to lead business. If they want to merge, fine, but we can't impose anything on this direction.
Regards David-- paperCrane <Justin Patrin>Whatever is great to Joshua might not sound as great for the current html_templates leads.Regards, -- Michael - < mike(@)php.net >