in reply to Template Toolkit vs HTML::Mason
in thread Text::Template
And regarding playing well outside mod_perl, Embperl works in CGI, offline, or mod_perl enabled modes. So no advantage to cpan://Template] there.
And finally, his companion (but useable separately tool) DBIx::Recordset has many niceties for HTML-based database navigation and for commission of form data into database in one -line.
Regarding Template, one must observe that it is middle-of-the-road. That is, on one hand, the conservative hand, we have HTML::Template which only allows one to place variables in HTML and thus demands maximum code re-use should you want to throw away your old HTML. On the other hand, the liberal hand, we have HTML::Embperl, where you can place Perl code right inside your HTML. In this case, you may not get around to creating abstractions and may not get the code-reuse the HTML::Template offers. But, it does offer abstraction mechanisms. You can create HTML::Subs which are like Perl subs, only their default language is HTML and you must escape to do Perl processing. Example:
[$ sub favorite_tag $] <h1>Python is for weenies</h1> [+ $date = (localtime)[3] $] <h1> [+ $date +]</h1> <li> [+ favorite_tag +]
And then of course, we have smack-dab in the middle, Template, the Template Toolkit. It allows you to play the conservative game and only inline Perl variables. But its %% PERL %% tag allows you to get as butt-wild as cpan::HTML::Embperl if you feel like it to.
So, really, it is high-time that someone assess these modules based on full-blown development instead of all of the piecemeal arguments and flame wars that I have seen to date.
|
---|