Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Push style templating systems

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Mar 17, 2008 at 02:08 UTC ( #674509=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Push style templating systems
in thread Push style templating systems

What I was trying to get at when I chose the terms callback and pipeline was the difference in how web requests are typically processed. Tools like Embperl, Mason, and Apache::ASP all want to hand off control to a template immediately, which puts the templates in the driver's seat (i.e. it's more like a complete program than a template). The others require you to run some other program and just call the template tool when you want to generate output.

I wasn't trying to use these terms to separate tools which use in-line code from those that don't. For example, I don't call Text::Template a callback system.

I don't have a trademark on these terms and you're free to use them as you wish, or ignore them completely. I'm just explaining what I had in mind when I wrote that.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Push style templating systems
by arbingersys (Pilgrim) on Mar 19, 2008 at 15:01 UTC

    That makes sense.

    Frankly, I like the terms you chose. They're very helpful in describing the abstract behavior of templates (in my view anyway). In fact, it was those very terms (and the article) that started me along the 'fragment' line.

    A blog among millions.
pipeline and callback are web application terminology, not template terminology
by metaperl (Curate) on Jan 26, 2009 at 20:52 UTC
    What I was trying to get at when I chose the terms callback and pipeline was the difference in how web requests are typically processed.
    Yes, what you wrote was a system architect's document. And you also wrote the document in the context of processing web requests. This is definitely fair game for an article on a mod_perl website, but in my eyes, pipeline and callback apply more accurately to web application systems.

    CGI::Application is pure pipeline... and regardless of what templating system you choose (even the ones you label callback), it will be used in the manner that you describe for pipeline systems.

    Now on the other hand, HTML::Embperl and HTML::Mason (the system, not the template language) are pure callback systems.

    Templating could be discussed without bring the web into it and then we could truly see how the execution model of template systems varies... hmm, sounds like a new node to me.

      For example, in this section you say:
      The pipeline style does all the work up front in a standard CGI or mod_perl handler, then decides which template to run and passes some data to it. The template has no control flow logic in it, just presentation logic, e.g. show this graphic if this item is on sale.
      now, by 'control flow logic' you certainly mean application control flow. because tt (a pipeline system) certainly has control flow constructs within it. but you will never see tt controllling application flow.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://674509]
help
Chatterbox?
[holli]: good morning you beautiful people. happy last work week of 2017

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2017-12-18 04:34 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (467 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?