Re: Play nice! Re: Savant/Flexy/Foo template engines

David Costa wrote:

I understand your point and I try to see things from your angle. Yet I haven't heard a real reason to justify that a common uber-template (which in case you wonder will not happen that easily) would provide a substantial benefit to 2 packages with their own differences.

Because PEAR commits to every package. Thats means if Alan gets run over, Paul dies of old age we are still commited to their packages. Even if they both never go away it still means that the QA team will have to deal with it. It also means that users will have to do alot of research instead of a bit. But I think we have agreed that redundant is bad David? You say Savant is different. If this is what we in the end agree upon then it has its place. If Savant is different, but redundant then the high quality claim is irrelevant unless what we currently have is low quality and needs to be deprecated. Anyways here is a novel way of thinking that might get you off of the "its different" attitude: In Flexy you generate Savant style templates. In Savant you write the templates yourself. Flexy: if ! (.php template exists || more recent raw template exists) if ! (raw template exists)

     Kaboom

else

    Compile -> Cache

Assign Finaloutput Savant: if ! (.php template exists) Kaboom Assign Finaloutput As you can see the only difference there really needs to be is that where Savant would explode due to a missing template, flexy would check if there is a template to compile and if yes compile and cache. Ok there is also the "or more recent raw template exists). Making this check optional by proper OO design should be a challenge. For the normal operation there isnt really any difference (aside from that single or that flexy needs). regards, Lukas