Standardized template API

At 08:28 AM 2/1/2006 -0500, Kevin Dangoor wrote:
>On 1/31/06, Phillip J. Eby <pjetelecommunity.com>
wrote:
> > Unlike Jim, I'm also actively *against* having
such a spec because it
> > creates the illusion that a useful problem has
been solved.  I don't have
> > anything against the Turbo/Buffet API, mind you, I
just don't want it
> > anywhere near a PEP.  It's a niche solution to a
niche problem, which is
> > allowing web frameworks to offer an illusion of
choice to developers.
>
>There may need to be two discussions here. There are
some minor tweaks
>to the current TurboGears template plugin spec that
people want. I
>don't know how many people are using those plugins, but
I do know that
>there are at least three. I'm fine with taking a first
step of making
>our changes to the simple variable-to-string interface
and having that
>be a de facto standard among those of us using these
plugins.
>
>If we can devise a standard that builds on WSGI in some
useful way and
>allows for more uses and wider adoption, as Phillip
suggests, that
>does seem like a fine goal for the web-sig. That effort
is not going
>to stop or hinder those of us who are already using
these template
>engine plugins happily, so I don't think we need to look
at this as an
>either-or proposition. The PEP would only cover the
larger standard,
>but we can still make good use of the tools we have
today.

+1.  I just want to make it so that frameworks get a bigger
win by 
supporting WSGI templating than by only implementing the
vars-to-strings 
convention, in order to encourage more frameworks to let
WSGI pass all the 
way through their stack.  This gets us a lot closer to the
place where 
anything works from inside of anything.

_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIGpython.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.
org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/bo
nd%40yahoo.com