Re: [htmltmpl] RFC: Conditional TMPL_INCLUDE

[Mathew R. <mat...@re...>]

I respect Sam's opinion on what should and shouldn't go into H::T, =
although I wouldn't consider some of the enhancements "feature creep" =
(ie I think not having TMPL_ELSIF would mean that a feature is missing) =
-> I thank him for producing a very use piece of code. =20

And these enhancements show that H::T can undergo more enhancements =
without 'breaking'... some of the features added to this version, are =
based on ideas from the people on this list -> they were added without a =
major re-architecture, more like a code evolution.

That said, the reason that I put together the functionality in my =
version of the H::T bundle was that I very-much needed certain =
functionality, such as:

- TMPL_ELSIF make my templates a lot clearer to read (under some =
circumstances)
- I absolutely need support for custom TMPL_xxx constructs
- I absolutely needed some bug fixes which Sam hasn't fixed


As to putting it up on CPAN... what would I call it ?    =
HTML::TemplateEnhanced ?

(note that most of these changes / enhancements cant be made by =
subclassing H::T...)

Mathew



> OK, I understand. So I guess my question is redirected to Mathew, =
could
> you subclass H::T and put your version on CPAN?
>=20
> > > Your version has some nice features that I could use, especially =
the
> > > recursive HTML::Template invocation.  Is there a reason why Sam =
has
> > > not included your mods into the CPAN version?
> >=20
> > The discussion of these changes is available in the mailing-list
> > archive.  If memory serves I didn't think that most of them required
> > changes to HTML::Template itself.  My feeling is that if
> > HTML::Template::Expr could be done without changes to HTML::Template
> > then there's really no limit on the changes that can be accomplished
> > by a sub-class using filter.
> >=20
> > Put simply, HTML::Template has suffered from feature-creap through =
its
> > life and it's nearly at the breaking point now.  The current =
code-base
> > won't remain maintainable with many more features added without a
> > major rearchitecture.  Someday maybe I'll do that and then all kinds
> > of extension will be easier...