awestruct with tilt (options)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

awestruct with tilt (options)

LightGuard
Administrator
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

mojavelinux

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

LightGuard
Administrator
render_engines ?


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?



--
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

mojavelinux
No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:

tilt:
  haml: ...

or

render_opts:
  haml: ...

(the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).

-Dan

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
render_engines ?


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?



--



--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

bobmcwhirter
Administrator
engines:


--
Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:

tilt:
  haml: ...

or

render_opts:
  haml: ...

(the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).

-Dan

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
render_engines ?


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?



--



--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

LightGuard
Administrator
engines works fine for me. We're talking about configuration they'll only mess with a few times. We can even start them off with some basic ones during init. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:51, Bob McWhirter <[hidden email]> wrote:

engines:


--
Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:

tilt:
  haml: ...

or

render_opts:
  haml: ...

(the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).

-Dan

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
render_engines ?


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?



--



--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

cody.lerum
engines +1


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
engines works fine for me. We're talking about configuration they'll only mess with a few times. We can even start them off with some basic ones during init. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:51, Bob McWhirter <[hidden email]> wrote:

engines:


--
Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:

tilt:
  haml: ...

or

render_opts:
  haml: ...

(the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).

-Dan

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
render_engines ?


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.

haml:
  attr_wrapper: '"'

Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.

tilt:
  haml:
    attr_wrapper: '"'

If you have a better root node name, please advise.

-Dan

--
Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
Android device, an open platform for
carriers, developers and consumers.

On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.

We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:

rdiscount:
  option: 'blah'
haml:
  option: 'blah'
less:
  path: true

you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?



--



--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

bobmcwhirter
Administrator
I'm not super familiar with tilt.

How does it know which engines to enable?  Based on a scan of extensions in use by the project?  Or would the engines: stanza be used to enable them explicitly, even if each engine required no particular configuration?

        -Bob


On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> engines +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> engines works fine for me. We're talking about configuration they'll only mess with a few times. We can even start them off with some basic ones during init.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:51, Bob McWhirter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> engines:
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:
>>>
>>> tilt:
>>>   haml: ...
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> render_opts:
>>>   haml: ...
>>>
>>> (the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> render_engines ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.
>>>
>>> haml:
>>>   attr_wrapper: '"'
>>>
>>> Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.
>>>
>>> tilt:
>>>   haml:
>>>     attr_wrapper: '"'
>>>
>>> If you have a better root node name, please advise.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
>>> Android device, an open platform for
>>> carriers, developers and consumers.
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.
>>>
>>> We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:
>>>
>>> rdiscount:
>>>   option: 'blah'
>>> haml:
>>>   option: 'blah'
>>> less:
>>>   path: true
>>>
>>> you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Porter
>>> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Porter
>>> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan Allen
>>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>>> Registered Linux User #231597
>>>
>>> http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>>> http://mojavelinux.com
>>> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://talk-archive.awestruct.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: awestruct with tilt (options)

mojavelinux
It uses a threadsafe require (in the sense that it warns you if you have more than one thread and didn't explicitly load it previously, such as in your pipeline) the first time you try to use a template engine. When tilt loads, it requires wrappers for each engine that handles this instantiation lazily, if necessary.

Here's an example of the haml one:


Bascially, if you have the engine installed, everything will go well. If not, your build will die telling you to install it....which I think is exactly what we want. Otherwise, we are requiring every template engine known to Ruby & Awestruct, which is just overkill.

-Dan

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Bob McWhirter <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not super familiar with tilt.

How does it know which engines to enable?  Based on a scan of extensions in use by the project?  Or would the engines: stanza be used to enable them explicitly, even if each engine required no particular configuration?

        -Bob


On Jan 22, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Cody Lerum <[hidden email]> wrote:

> engines +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> engines works fine for me. We're talking about configuration they'll only mess with a few times. We can even start them off with some basic ones during init.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 6:51, Bob McWhirter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> engines:
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> No matter what I think of, it ends up looking like too many characters. I'm still leaning towards:
>>>
>>> tilt:
>>>   haml: ...
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> render_opts:
>>>   haml: ...
>>>
>>> (the latter implying that we are using tilt, but not exposing it).
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Jason Porter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> render_engines ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Dan Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Agreed. I think keeping it as flat as possible is the way to go. Consider the option for haml.
>>>
>>> haml:
>>>   attr_wrapper: '"'
>>>
>>> Though to make them easier to pass around, for instance to pass on to the tilt engine in Asciidoctor, perhaps an extra level won't hurt.
>>>
>>> tilt:
>>>   haml:
>>>     attr_wrapper: '"'
>>>
>>> If you have a better root node name, please advise.
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my CyanogenMod-powered
>>> Android device, an open platform for
>>> carriers, developers and consumers.
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2013 5:32 PM, "Jason Porter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'm looking at awestruct w/ tilt ala Aslak's branch.
>>>
>>> We're thinking of having options for the various engines in site.yml:
>>>
>>> rdiscount:
>>>   option: 'blah'
>>> haml:
>>>   option: 'blah'
>>> less:
>>>   path: true
>>>
>>> you get the idea. Any thoughts for or against?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Porter
>>> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Porter
>>> http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan Allen
>>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>>> Registered Linux User #231597
>>>
>>> http://google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>>> http://mojavelinux.com
>>> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://talk-archive.awestruct.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]




--
Dan Allen
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597