[Dancer-users] Dancer::Template::Alloy — in core, or my own module?

David Precious davidp at preshweb.co.uk
Mon May 24 12:29:45 CEST 2010

On Monday 24 May 2010 06:45:33 Daniel Pittman wrote:
> We have been trialing Dancer, and find it pretty darn good.  

Glad to hear it!  Any feedback on specific features you like/dislike, or any 
suggestions? Feedback is always valuable :)

> The one thing we have done which is not in the current core is to use 
> Template::Alloy in preference to the more common Template-Toolkit engine.
> I am not super-interested in advocating other people do the same; for us,
> it fixed some nasty bugs that caused problems without significant
> drawbacks, but for other people it might not have the same balance.

Any chance you could describe the bugs which caused you problems?  Were they 
TT bugs, or bugs in the way Dancer uses TT?  If it's anything we can fix, we'd 
certainly like to hear about it!

> Anyway, as part of that I wrote[1] Dancer::Template::Alloy, which is pretty
> much the Dancer::Template::TemplateToolkit module with the names changed.
> Is this something y'all would want to pull back into the Dancer core
> distribution, or should I throw it to CPAN under my own name?
> I see most of the other engines have gone as their own distributions, so
> I suspect this one should too, but wanted to ask the developers first.

I think I'd agree that it should be release separately; we want to try to keep 
Dancer's core quite light and avoid extra dependencies.  There are several 
other Dancer::Template::* modules already released to CPAN by various people, 
so I think that would be the best bet.


Dave P

David Precious <davidp at preshweb.co.uk>
http://blog.preshweb.co.uk/    www.preshweb.co.uk/twitter
www.preshweb.co.uk/linkedin    www.preshweb.co.uk/facebook
www.preshweb.co.uk/identica    www.lyricsbadger.co.uk

  "Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support 
  it for the rest of your life". (Michael Sinz)

More information about the Dancer-users mailing list