"Standard" template / config modules?

[Jamie]

Hello Newsgroup,

Just soliciting conversation, not that I really could do anything
about it if I wanted to.. but..

Two of the things PHP have that perl has in triplicates are templates
and configuration modules.

PHP ships with INI reading utilities and the <?php .. ?> "standard"
approach to templates. Perl doesn't seem to ship with anything like
that. (the closest we get to a "standard" text template is the
formatted reports, as far as I know, there is no standard
configuration modules)

The perl flexibility is nice, however it makes it really difficult to
design web applications in a manner that allows them to *easily* adapt
into existing web sites. I know I've personally written several template
modules, each for a different itch and sometimes just so there are no
module dependencies.

With PHP, it's much easier. You get one choice and it'll probably fit
in (or can be made to do so).

What do you think the chances are that they'll pick a standard,
simple, no-fuss "tiny" template implementation and configuration
module for the core modules?

Jamie

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

J> What do you think the chances are that they'll pick a standard,
J> simple, no-fuss "tiny" template implementation and
J> configuration module for the core modules?

Zero. There are too many tradeoffs among the various options, and
TIMTOWDTI is a core value.

Charlton

 

[DJ Stunks]

J> What do you think the chances are that they'll pick a standard,
J> simple, no-fuss "tiny" template implementation and
J> configuration module for the core modules?

Zero. There are too many tradeoffs among the various options, and
TIMTOWDTI is a core value.

This begs the question in my mind - who decides which modules are core
in a given release? So, when 5.10 goes official, if it does, who
decides which modules not included in 5.8 will be included in the
distribution? And do all 5.8 core modules automatically make the cut?

-jp

 

[Jamie]

J> What do you think the chances are that they'll pick a standard,
J> simple, no-fuss "tiny" template implementation and
J> configuration module for the core modules?

Zero. There are too many tradeoffs among the various options, and
TIMTOWDTI is a core value.

What are some strategies for handling the problem? As far as I can
tell, all hope is pretty much lost if you want to design something
to "fit in" with something else, since "something else" could be
in any template format (or PHP for that matter)

But as far as something like, "Config::General" (for example) is
it considered accepted practice to just include it with the script
and install it as a local package?

Jamie

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

J> But as far as something like, "Config::General" (for example)
J> is it considered accepted practice to just include it with the
J> script and install it as a local package?

"This software package requires Perl 5.8.5 or better and
Config::General. Please be sure they are installed and up-to-date
before continuing the installation."

Let the users and system administrators install the necessary
software; it's inappropriate to copy it yourself into a local
directory, because that way lies DLL hell, and you'll really tick off
savvy users. If you have a lot of dependencies, you can create an
installer script to automate the process; a very good model is the one
Matt S Trout put together for Catalyst.

If you simply *must* cater to the cut-rate web host crowd, you're
better off using PHP anyway, since it's likely to be (marginally)
better supported; and a user who chooses an inadequate web host over
an adequate one on the basis of saving $5 a month is not a customer
you really want anyway.

Charlton