Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Templateby princepawn (Parson)
|on Apr 26, 2001 at 02:16 UTC
Data, Logic, Display: The Multi-Tiered Decoupled Approach to Web DesignIn Refining the CGI process through structure and templates, boo_radley does state:
A good CGI framework should provide 1.Template handling -- go TT2! Keeping templates divorced from code allows me to to farm out HTML and probably SQL, not to mention benefits of maintenance, etcBut one must ask. Does Template force one to separate Perl and HTML? The answer is no, it does not. In fact, anything you can do in Perl, you can do using the [% PERL %] Template directive.
Furthermore, Template exports a mini-language, containing loops and conditionals and simplified methods of defining Perl hash and array refs. And beyond that, people have written plugins to extend this mini-langauge even further to support database interaction among other things.
So, with Template as your templating solution, you have Perl and Template as programming languages and then you have HTML.
On the other hand HTML::Template has far more limited mini-language, forcing one to do much more in pure Perl.
Web App Frameworks and Their Chosen Template Engine
ConclusionIn my eyes, Template is offering replicated functionality through its too-powerful and too-feature-packed mini-language. There is nothing that this mini-language offers that cannot and should not be done in re-usable Perl modules.
On the other hand, HTML::Template by creating a very narrow snake's tube between Perl computation and HTML display, forces one to use Perl for it's strength and HTML for it's without any chance for the feature overlap phenomenon that has happened with Template.