[geeklog-devel] [geeklog-cvs] Geeklog-1.x
Mark R. Evans
mevans at ecsnet.com
Sun Nov 25 04:27:32 EST 2007
So no template caching for 1.5?
This is a shame! I have been running that library with every plugin
available (that still works with GL 141) without issue (see
glcvs.gllabs.org). The new if logic included could be a real boost to
productivity for both Geeklog and plugins. I already done some prototyping
using this feature and it can remove using all these little one line
templates to handle is there something to display or isn't there.
I guess I don't understand how there could be all the discussion here months
ago about doing something about the template library and then when someone
does something that works incredibly well, is 100% backward compatible and
provides a performance increase it is tossed aside.
Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that the XHTML patch was finally acted
upon, but I'm just trying to find and understand the logic about the caching
template library. It was submitted here back in September and this is the
first time it has finally be addressed and the answer is, wait for 1.5.1? I
know how much work Joe put into this, I've done several rounds of
benchmarking, I've done a significant amount of testing of this library to
validate it works as it should.
I guess I don't understand how this can be set aside and core changes that
simply don't work (pure CSS commit moving header to COM_siteFooter -
references variable that don't even exist or get passed, doesn't support
dynamic columns, etc.) get in the codebase.
I wish this would be reconsidered, if nothing else, have it as an option,
use caching or don't. I would prefer to see this become the only template
library as the new features make it a much stronger tool than what is in
Another unsolicited opinion....
On 11/25/07, Dirk Haun <dirk at haun-online.de > wrote:
> Joe Mucchiello wrote:
> >I hate to sound whiny but I thought we were in a feature freeze.
> >There's this and the XHTML stuff going in.
> We talked about the XHTML patches. Oliver had already done some
> (limited) work on this in CVS and we wanted to spare Dengen et al. the
> hassle of having to make such a monster patch a third time ...
> As for the user stuff - that surprised me as well :-/ Blaine, why did
> you submit this? I thought we were getting a chance to try it out and
> talk about it first.
> >Is anything going to happen with the template caching?
> Just yesterday, I had a look at the three patches to Geeklog's core code
> that you describe in the readme. I will add them to CVS but not the
> template library itself. That should make it easier for anyone to try
> your code out and then when 1.5.1 comes around, we can discuss again
> whether we want to include it or not.
> bye, Dirk
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the geeklog-devel