Hi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Hanno Schlichting <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:hanno@hannosch.eu">hanno@hannosch.eu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Tim Hoffman &lt;<a href="mailto:zutesmog@gmail.com">zutesmog@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; I have been using zope.pagetemplate for quite some time within repoze.bfg<br>
&gt; projects and bobo (+zope.component) on google appengine<br>
&gt; (python 2.5.x).<br>
<br>
</div>Is there a reason why you don&#39;t use Chameleon? Since version 1.1 it<br>
should be fully compatible with GAE.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We have a large code base using zope.pagetemplate on appengine, and when we started chameleon couldn&#39;t run on appengine.</div><div>I should spend some time checking out how well chameleon runs now.  Though I have some discussion recently</div>
<div>on a few descrepancies in behaviour.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
It might be easier to switch to the new kid, instead of trying to make<br>
the highly integrated zope.pagetemplate work for you.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Its already been working since very early 2009 so it&#39;s more about being able to setup buildout etc..... rather than hand crafting everything.</div><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
&gt; So now for my modest proposal,  do you think it would be feasible to move<br>
&gt; the restricted engine implementations out of zope.pagetemplate.engine and<br>
&gt; into some higher level package and provide a simple trusted engine that<br>
&gt; anyone can use (that supports metal as well)<br>
<br>
</div>At least Zope2 depends on this engine, so moving the engine out into a<br>
zope.app.* package is not an option, it would have to be some new<br>
zope.* package. I&#39;m not sure what and how BlueBream and Grok use this.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Bummer didn&#39;t realize this</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">

&gt; If people think this is a good idea, I am quite willing work on this (with<br>
&gt; guidance ;-), so thoughts, comments welcome.<br>
<br>
</div>I&#39;d like to hear the reasons for not using Chameleon. To me that looks<br>
like the better forward path and avoid lots of adjustments and a<br>
lengthy migration period for zope.pagetemplate users.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will revisit chameleon. One thing I note that chameleon uses python as default expressions where as zope.pagetemplate (and all our</div><div>code) uses tal expressions as default, and &quot;python:&quot; when we want python.  If that default behaviour can&#39;t easily be changed (I can&#39;t find anything in the docs on this) it would mean a lot of rework, in just 2 projects we have over 500 different .pt files  ( sure some global search and replaces will help, but still a lot of changes and testing.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So at this point chameleon needs to be api/implementation compatible with zope.pagetemplates (metal included) or its a big job</div><div>shifting.</div><div><br></div><div>Hey it was just a suggestion and if people think zope.pagetemplate is a bit of a dead end, then maybe I should invest the time </div>
<div>on chameleon</div><div> </div><div>Rgds</div><div><br></div><div>T</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font color="#888888">
Hanno<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>