[Templates] Can there be two?

[Andy Wardley]

Excellent work Paul!

> I've been waiting for the anticipated 2.15 release...

It's creeping quite close to the top of my TODO list.  I didn't get any 
feedback from 2.14a.  Did anyone try it out?  Paging Mr Warnock!  Please 
pick up the white courtesy telephone... :-)

> So the first big question:  Is there room for two engines that implement
> the Template Toolkit specification?

I've certainly got no objections.  Heck, there are 40+ Perl template 
modules that _don't_ implement the TT spec, so I'm all in favour of 
increasing our number!

> Next question.  If I do release it - should I go to lengths to support all
> of the extended options that TT uses?  

Nah.  I wouldn't bother if I were you.  It strikes me that what you've 
got here is a slightly simpler and stripped down version of TT.  I'd 
make a virtue of that rather than weighing it down with all of TT's baggage.

And besides, all those cranky old options are going to change for TT3.

> Whether I release a separate module or not, the TT dev team (mostly
> Andy) will be welcome to cut out what ever portions of code they may
> find useful.

I certainly will.  Can you post a link to the code?

> Finally - Is releasing this premature?  Will TT3's speed increase?  Is
> increasing the speed a factor for anybody else?  Does anybody even
> care if there is another module?

I think "yes" to all of those.  First, from a purely selfish point of 
view I would rather you dedicated your time to TT3 development than 
anything else :-)

Yes, I'm expecting TT3's speed to increase, although in some cases we 
might spend longer parsing in order to spend less time running.  But 
anyway, the language and runtime environments will be pluggable so that 
you can use different implementations depending on what you're after: 
speed, flexibility, safety, etc.

More comments to follow at the end of the thread...

A