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

On Jun 9, 2004, at 6:43 PM, Lukas Smith wrote:

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?

Yes we did. But in my opinion Savant is not redundant. Perhaps I am wrong but having used both the existing ones and Savant I could see why an user would want to use Savant only. Now this doesn't mean that I won't use Savant unless is on PEAR.

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.

That is the case with the other 2 I mentioned or at least with Xipe. They might not be low quality but they are no longer loved and something which has no active developer can stay on the quality time for a long while.

Anyways here is a novel way of thinking that might get you off of the "its different" attitude:

snip

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.

Right but that's not the only difference. You can write your own filters and plugins for instance. But let's assume that the idea of one size fits all will apply to templates. Then Ulf, Pierre, Alan, Alexey should get together and code a new one deprecating the existing ones. This might be possible, but I am not entirely sure it will happen anytime soon.

For the normal operation there isnt really any difference (aside from that single or that flexy needs).

I see your point but I do see a difference for the user in adopting a non caching/non compiling template vs the existing ones. If you look at the result it might be similar because both solve the same kind of problem. Your arguments are very clear but I think we politely disagree on the difference point. To me it's different. I don't rely upon a possible integration in flexy and say "look is not that different because someone else could code something similar or integrate it to the existing one". I try to think to the users, as you do. You see one more template engine as a problem, I see Savant not as a template engine but a simple solution to a problem and something that PEAR users will benefit from. Cheers David Costa

regards, Lukas -- PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php