<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
J. Paul Reed wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 13 Dec 2004 at 15:17:08, Myk Melez arranged the bits on my disk to say:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Sure, but could we have used something better? I don't think so.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yet, you really don't provide any justification for that answer.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be honest, I don't remember the details of my research, but I
remember that TT beat the alternatives hands down at the time on the
factors I considered, and I'll wager it would do so again if we did the
research today, probably on feature set, customizability, code quality,
community/support, and project vitality.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I was having a conversation with Christopher Hicks about this, and I
provided a lighter weight solution which I think is better.
Of course, I didn't bother mentioning it here because a) I wrote it, so "of
course I think it's better" and b) I wrote it long after TT was chosen.
Personally, I think TT is a huge pile of crap, if for no other reason than
it's slow.</pre>
</blockquote>
"It's slow" is vague; how is it too slow for you? It's fast enough for
me today, including on the very busy b.m.o (which slows down sometimes
for other reasons but loads templatized pages quickly otherwise), and
it'll be much faster in the future under mod_cgi and SpeedyCGI.<br>
<br>
For what other reasons is it "crap"?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do a post-mortem and be honest about
where the policy decisions, implementation efforts and the technology
failed. We should be similarly honest about the successes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Also, the claim "We shouldn't look at any other solutions now because the
one we picked years ago was the best one at the time" isn't compelling. I
don't know if you're making that claim, but I've heard it made, and that's
just wrong.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I agree, and I'm not making that claim, because if a better solution is
available, and its long-terms benefits outweigh the cost of switching,
we should do so. I do think that we're unlikely to find a better
overall alternative, not even considering the migration cost, but I'm
willing to be convinced otherwise.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Me, I didn't find using TT "pleasurable" at all. I found it's loop control
particularly stupid.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What's stupid about it?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is actually the right thing to do in some cases, particularly when
processing takes a while and we can give the user updates on its
progress, f.e. when sending mail or modifying multiple bugs. Of course,
we would need iterative template output for that, but that can be hacked
into TT2 and comes native in TT3, an alpha of which was recently
released.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Ahh... the software salesman's mantra: "It's in the next version."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, it's available now. I hacked it into TT2 for a different
page on b.m.o years ago, and it could be used just as easily for pages
for which iterative status updates are useful.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20041213233438.GA25056@sigkill.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Either way, that way it's done now is ugly, and problematic because of
include ordering.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What's the include ordering problem?<br>
<br>
-myk<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>