From: David Naseby <naseby@...>
Date: 2004-11-07T07:52:18+09:00
Subject: Re: FastCGI parameters (get and post)

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 02:23:40 +0900, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov
<ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Patrick May wrote:
> 
> > I think that a rich, low-level web api would be a good thing.  Integrating
> > WebUnit, Nora, Narf, Amrita all together I think would be quite useful.
> 
> i thought i was the only one still using amrita!  development seems to have
> died on it, but i still find it's feature set the richest and the
> code/template separation the cleanest of the engines i've tried.
> 
> what's your take on the current crop of template engines vs. amrita?  i've
> been out of web development for a bit but am starting a new project and trying
> to make an assesment of the ruby tools out there.

I still dig Amrita. So do the developer(s) of Cerise
(http://cerise.rubyforge.org/), which looks good, and bases its
template engine on Amrita. Iowa
(http://enigo.com/projects/iowa/index.html), while not based on
Amrita, has templates that are philosophically similar, by and large -
you don't often need to use invalid html to set the template up.

-- 
David Naseby
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~naseby/