Re: Mason 2.0 thoughts

On May 15, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote:

> On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:41:22PM -0700, Jonathan Swartz wrote:
>> And both of these also suffer from being line based, and thus ill-
>> suited to handle small pieces of content, unlike CWC and Rails blocks
>> and TT filters.
>
> I think this is a bit of a red herring.  All the examples given  
> here and all
> the examples on the rails caching doc page you gave are full lines  
> of content,
> also.  Given that caching tends to take several arguments (key and  
> expiration,
> at least), and that people tend to avoid very long lines, do you  
> really think
> that "it's line-based" is a huge hindrance?
>

Yes. It may not be important for the cache filter in particular, but  
I'm thinking about filtering in a much more general way - cache is  
just one example - and I guarantee there are some filters that will  
be appropriate for small pieces of content.

The line-based syntax works well for "if" and "for" and such, but I  
wouldn't want to employ it for such an open-ended feature as filters.

Jon




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/