Re: Re: Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template

Now that is a nice fuckin article. Excuse my language. But you went balls out on that one. I'm surprised that with your background at eToys that you didn't mention BingoX::Chromium and XPP.

Your article would go well with the new book c_monster announced at use.perl.org entitled "Perl for the Web" which I think is also excellent.

Comment on Re: Re: Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template by perrin (Chancellor) on Aug 15, 2001 at 09:25 UTC
Thanks. I actually did mention XPP, but it's really not as good a choice as the other modules I reviewed so I only covered it very briefly. BingoX::* was not something we used at eToys. It was used (and developed) by another company who we contracted to build a children's entertainment section of the site, which was totally independent and ran on separate hardware. eToys used a couple of homegrown templating systems, and later switched to Template Toolkit.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Web Application Frameworks and their Templating Engines with a Comparative Study of Template and HTML::Template
by perrin (Chancellor) on Aug 15, 2001 at 09:25 UTC

Thanks. I actually did mention XPP, but it's really not as good a choice as the other modules I reviewed so I only covered it very briefly. BingoX::* was not something we used at eToys. It was used (and developed) by another company who we contracted to build a children's entertainment section of the site, which was totally independent and ran on separate hardware. eToys used a couple of homegrown templating systems, and later switched to Template Toolkit.

[reply]