On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:27:59PM -0800, Kevin Connor wrote:
> I checked out Maypole exactly because it used TT and CDBI. I don't want
> to move away from those technologies or even abstract away from them.
I agree. I'd much rather see Maypole get even more entwined with them.
When you head in the opposite direction you can no longer play to the
things that make the various components different - you have to reduce
everything to lowest common denominator.
I see a lot of scope for Maypole to exploit lots more features of TT, for
example. Rather than having all the default templates that we currently
have, we could push more and more of this stuff further into VIEWs,
MACROs and Plugins, so that the default templates become lighter and
lighter, such that there's a much smoother learning curve for moving
from them to building your own. But if we need to work with lots of
other templating systems as well, this becomes harder and harder to do,
and the framework becomes blander and blander.
Maypole should really just be the framework that says: "If you want to
build a website with Class::DBI and Template::Toolkit, then here's a
framework that'll get rid of all the boring repetitive bits for you, and
free you up to concentrate on the stuff that makes your site unique"
If Maypole decides to become something other than this, then someone
else still really needs to make what I've just described.
Tony
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT