From: Josh Clark <joshclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I imagine this is somewhat more expensive than includes.
Significantly so? Particularly in a CGI environment? Other downsides?
Something I like to do when I want to gain more reuse of template fragments
than feels comfortable with lots of includes is preprocess the templates. (Or,
if it seems like there's a lot of one-time static setup of a page and I'm
concerned about performance issues.) For tags I want to preprocess I name them
"<PREPROC_*>". I have a little command line script to use H::T to load a
template, use the filter option to change all "<TMPL_*>" to some other value,
change "<PREPROC_*>" to <TMPL_*>, output the template, apply a regular
expression to change the original <TMPL_*> values back to TMPL_*. I write the
data to the real (run-time) template directory.
Another way to get creative with includes is use multiple directories on the
template path option. You can use variable substitution to include templates
from different directories at run time. But, it sounds to me like what you're
trying to do would benefit more from preprocessing?
Mark
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
|
