Re: Savant 3.0.0 and PEAR?

I have to admit, that I'm not familiar enough with the current PEAR template systems for reasonable comparison with Savant. I tried most of them for short time but I don't remember the details about each of them. While reading through the comments regarding the voting about Savant in 2004, another idea came to my mind. IF we would integrate Savant as a PEAR package - would we be able to change a few things in the current Savant implementation? I suppose, most of you don't want to change anything because of backward compatibility. However, I just want to share my ideas. For example: Paul Jones pointed out (in one of his comments regarding the recent voting about Savant), that he would drop the static Plugin/Filter architecture of Savant in favor of a more OO-like approach (every Plugin/Filter would be an instance and use instance methods for processing). Personally I would change parts of the API too. Especially I would like to see more verbose method naming. Thank you for your replies! On Apr 16, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Bertrand Mansion wrote:

Le 16 avr. 07 à 12:14, Bertrand Mansion a écrit :

Le 16 avr. 07 à 12:18, David Sanders a écrit :

Bertrand Mansion wrote:

A few days ago I started evaluating Savant 3.0.0 (www.phpsavant.com) for future usage and I like it. It's really easy to use and it's fast. There's no need to learn a special syntax because it's actually using PHP itself as template language. However, I started wondering why it's not published as a PEAR package? Tight integration with PEAR error handling would be nice. Even more important: I'm thinking about possible Savant Plugins/Filters for integration with packages such as Text_Wiki and especially HTML_QuckForm.

I agree with this. Savant is a good solution for templates and has no equivalent currently in PEAR, therefore I would very much like to see it in PEAR if Paul has some time to propose it. Now that he is back here, we might hear from him more often :)

I've always thought that it should be in PEAR, I use this template engine all the time. But wasn't this proposed and discussed some time ago and eventually rejected?

PEAR has changed since, people who rejected it might have changed their mind or simply left. And now we have a voting system... It would be a good time to repropose this.

Hmm, I actually found the link to the votes: <http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-votes-show.php?id=83> If you read all the comments (especially the ones about a merge with Flexy), I am pretty sure a lot of people changed their minds :) Look at the number of votes, those were the good old days ! Also, look at this particular one: <http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-vote-show.php?id=83&handle=pajoye> This summarizes well the state of mind of PEAR back then, and there wasn't much to do about it.