Re: STS Template Engine

[Helge Hess]

On 2. Sep 2005, at 17:01 Uhr, Sunrise Ltd wrote:
> > Well, my first thought was: why another templating engine? We
> > already  have WO (either in SOPE or in gstep-web).
> It would seem that your idea of "templating engine" is a little  
> narrow.

How to you come to this conclusion?

> WO is great for webservers and templating of webcontent.

Indeed.

> But there are far more templating requirements than webcontent.

Obviously.

> As mentioned, the STS Template Engine was specifically designed to  
> generate configuration files for faceless server apps, such as in  
> our case
> Asterisk.

And you can't do this with WO? Interesting, we can and its rather  
cool for this kind of things.
It would seem that your idea of "WO" is a little narrow.

> It could be used for webcontent templating, but it is specifically  
> designed for system configuration tasks. And for this purpose it  
> beats WO hands down.

If you say so.


You might want to add actual reasons on why your NIH templating is  
better than WO for the task instead of accusing someone of having a  
"narrow idea". Your mail has no interesting content on that actual  
point.

regards,
  Helge

PS: your email address doesn't work.
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org