Re: [PHP Template] Re: [PHP3] template engine example document
[email protected] (Andrei Zmievski) Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:55:29 -0600
| Newsgroups | php.template |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Ron Chmara wrote: > Well, the line programmers shouldn't be arbitrarily inventing their own variables, > EVER. There has to be some form of consistancy. In this case, the variables are > known, site wide, by the page designers, and the PHP logic coders. And who should be inventing new variables? > $tblcolor is > something a PHP coder doesn't own, it's not their variable. It's the designer's. Exactly. That's why designers have .conf file where they setup these "design" variables and use them in the templates. > Heh. I thought you kept your designers _out_ of logic? They're doing > IF/ELSE statements? So much for not needing programming. :-) The goal is to keep them out of content, mostly. Our designers, for example, would raise hell if they couldn't do a simple 'if' here and there. > So far, there's designer set up variables, the .conf file, but > what about the page logic? Well, you dump the if's and the looping > on the *designer*, and all you do is make a simplified syntax! No one is dumping looping on the designer. > Does this make it more obvious for you? By setting up the concept > of designer logic, and coder logic, and keeping separate files, your > template spec led you to recreate PHP, albeit with a modified syntax. > You can maintain the designer logic, and coder logic, as separate > files, with the designers doing simplified logic in their files (which > you are calling templates). For iteration, you recall the same file, > and with a decent amount of RAM, your overhead is only for the file > from buffer.... > > Of course, the more complex the presentaion logic becomes, the more > constructs it requires, so you wind up with limited languages like > a subset of PHP... which can be accomplished by only training them > in what they can handle, without building another language, with a new > syntax for loops. Ok, you proved it's technically possible, but logistically? My god, I can't imagine having to write "articlecheck.inc" for every looping construct or to split out all the little pieces into a miriad of .inc files. That's unworkable both for me _and_ for the designer. We've tried it, trust me. -Andrei * I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. *