[Chicago-talk] TT vs Mason
Jonathan Rockway
jon at jrock.us
Thu Jun 15 14:43:11 PDT 2006
Actually, thinking about this a bit more, I think the ideal thing would
be if TT let you put a nice block of perl code somewhere in the
document, and then reference into it (as though it were a TTx).
Maybe something like:
[% CODE %]
use My::Module;
sub escape_uri : Filter {
my $in = shift;
my $out = My::Module::fix($in, "XHTML", "blah", "foo");
return $out;
}
[% END %]
?
I'm not a big fan of the [% method.call(argument, another, blah) %],
since I never know what's a bareword, what's a variable, what's a hash,
what's a function, what's a scalar, etc. nor do I know where that
variable came from (Catalyst stash?, earlier in the file?, TTx
extension?). Would anyone else like syntax like
[% $variable | escape_uri %]
(to call escape_uri with a scalar $variable, and then replace the [% %]
region with the output of escape_uri)?
It would also be nice to autogenerate HTML as perl CGI, but with nicer
(read: more maintainable) syntax than TTx::CGI.
I need to think about this some more.
...or maybe I just need to read up on Mason :)
Regards,
Jonathan Rockway
Andy Lester wrote:
> My feeling is that Mason is more given to componentization, but it's
> also more of a pain to deal with, IMHO.
>
> TT is also more abstract in the sense that it's not tied to web pages
> like Mason is. Mason can do generic templating, but it's more of a
> pain.
>
> Personally, I prefer the TT metaphor of "pass some data into this
> template" rather than the Mason "here's a template with code in it."
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 370 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/chicago-talk/attachments/20060615/0a3631b1/attachment.bin
More information about the Chicago-talk
mailing list