Re: [PEPr] +1 for HTML::Template_Savant

Paul M Jones wrote:

... I'm not certain what the condition is regarding Savant qua Savant. Are you saying, the vote for Savant is based on a converting Savant into a pre-Flexy or a Flexy Lite? Or are you saying we need a third package, not-Savant and not-Flexy, from which both Savant and Flexy should extend? Not trying to be obtuse, just not sure what condition is to be fulfilled for your vote.

My English obtuse, not you. I want 1 Savant in PEAR, and I would prefer to see it used as a basis for flexy, if that is possible. In other words, I think parallel Savant and Flexy with savant-like code isn't a good idea, because the implementations don't differ enough, and sigma/it is enough of a confusing issue. Having worked with both you and Alan, I think you would be a mighty fine team, if you can work out the technical differences and unify to something that is better than your Savant or Alan's Flexy implementation of Savant. I do feel that since flexy works and savant works, there is no emergency to get a great solution by Saturday, and if this takes a while to get it right, that is OK too. My vote is for Savant to be in PEAR in one form or another as a lightweight, simple template engine. It is not enough for me to have savant's features in Flexy, but I do like what Alan's doing, so I would like you two to work together, if possible, on splitting things apart into savant and flexy extends savant, that would be very good for us users. I have not coded either template engine, however, so if both of you feel that it would be better to have savant as a separate thing from flexy, then I am full +1 for savant in PEAR. It's a complex situation, I hope this email clears up my vote. Greg