On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 23:46, Evan Simpson wrote:

Tres Seaver wrote:

...

Actually, the restricted case is the one which has the real win; the "free-floating" library is pretty, but not semanticaally needed. An added argument: a ZPT with its own private library becomes, in effect, a Zope3 view component; adopting such beasts will ease migration to Zope3.

Agreed.

...

For the filesystem representation: what if we just have two files for templates with libraries: 'foo.html' and 'foo.html.py'?

Eh. I think filesytem representations should handle this sort of thing much more generally. Assuming that the Zope object's ID is 'foo.html', there should be a text file of that name (encoded with quote_plus, which makes no difference in this case), and a directory named 'foo.html,'. Inside of this directory, there would be a 'library.py' (in this particular case), along with files such as 'properties' and 'proxies'.

Hmm, I'm thinking about this for the CMF. In CMF 1.3.x, a template which has a cache manager, or a title, puts those values in a simple 'name=value'-formatted file, with extension '.properties'. Permission mappings go in a separate file, with extension '.security'. So, the filesystem-based template 'foo_view' might have as many as three files associated with it: - 'foo_view.pt' - 'foo_view.pt.properties' - 'foo_view.pt.security' CMF 1.4 unified the two files into a single, '.ini'-formatted one: - 'foo_view.pt' - 'foo_view.pt.metadata' It feels more natural to me just to add another file: - 'foo_view.pt.py' This is especially nice for many CMF skin templates (those which contain forms), because I can probably *remove* the separate template which serves as the "POST-target" for the form! Instead, such templates will post *to themselves*, and use the bound library to do the validation / updates. In this case, we go from: - 'foo_edit_form.pt' - 'foo_edit.py' to: - 'foo_edit_form.pt' - 'foo_edit_form.pt.py'

...

And there is yet another argument for the bound library: it shows how unnecessary, as well has how evil, that <script> tag hack is.

Yep :-)

...

Refactoring a "one-off" template-cum-library will be simple, too:

Cool!

...

I would vote for having the bound library's names inserted into the 'template' TALES namespace, BTW.

Tricky -- right now, that's just the template object itself. I'd just introduce a builtin 'library' variable, and probably dump the function names into the global namespace as well.

+1, then. Tres. -- =============================================================== Tres Seaver tseaver@zope.com Zope Corporation "Zope Dealers" http://www.zope.com