freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:06:08 GMT
Saturday, February 17, 2018, 9:36:48 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:

> Wrong link, sorry, correcting.
>
> http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/2.10/templates/#include

Just be sure it's clear, we also have an ignore_missing option (in the
released versions). But it's often not very useful if you can't do
some action in case the template is missing.

Jinja also allows you to specify a list of template names instead of
just one, and uses that as a fallback list. That's something I have
considered as well, and I believe it covers most use-cases for the
proposed feature. However, it falls into the same mistake as
ingnore_missing, as it focuses on a concrete use-case while missing
another (when you have to do something before the template if it
exists). I prefer less but more generic devices. With that could have
avoid adding ignore_missing as well.

> On Feb 17, 2018 11:34 AM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilaments@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For a point of comparison, the python jinja2 template engine (widely used)
>> has an "include" directive that has an attribute named "ignore missing"
>> [1]. I also remember seeing similar behavior in other engines.
>>
>> So I guess perhaps from a usability point of view this seems to be a
>> desired feature by users. However, I don't know what the impact in terms of
>> complexity would reflect in the code base.
>>
>> http://jinja.pocoo.org/docs/2.10/templates/#list-of-global-functions
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2018 11:18 AM, "Jacopo Cappellato" <jacopo.cappellato@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddekany@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Some more opinions guys? Especially as we got one opinion against the
>>> > feature.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Just to clarify my opinion: I am not against this feature; I simply don't
>>> consider it a must since there are some workaround to get a similar
>>> behavior. But if it will be implemented I will be happy too.
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Mime
View raw message