Please consider remove the -p flag!

Question

Please consider remove the -p flag!

opened this issue 3 years ago · comments

Deleted user commented 3 years ago

If your templates use partials you should pass paths to partials using -p flag:

This is very much inconvenient, could you please add a feature that kill the -p flag? Please?

Phillip Johnsen · Answer 1 · Sun Mar 28 2021 21:25:28 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

His there! Would you be so kind and elaborate why that argument is so inconvent?

…

On Sun, 28 Mar 2021 at 15:17, d892fc ***@***.***> wrote: If your templates use partials you should pass paths to partials using -p flag: This is very much inconvenient, could you please add a feature that kill the -p flag? Please? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#774>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJMWE6NO2W4LSQ5FDNKF3TTF4T73ANCNFSM4Z6A4TJQ> .

Deleted user · Answer 2 · Sun Mar 28 2021 23:48:06 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

@phillipj
Thanks very much for your attention!

The situation is if a mustache template use partials, I have to pass paths to partials using -p flag, like this:

$ mustache -p path/to/partial1.mustache -p path/to/partial2.mustache dataView.json myTemplate.mustache

This is inconvenient because sometimes it's difficult to figure out what partials I've used in a template, what is worse is that even I have figured out that, I have to input a lot of words in the Terminal, it's very painful.

So I think there might be some way to not let a user to provide such information, because mustache.js can figure out them automatically:

-p path/to/partial1.mustache -p path/to/partial2.mustache

Phillip Johnsen · Answer 3 · Mon Mar 29 2021 03:10:51 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I see your point of having to provide potentially many partial arguments.

It would be interesting to hear what & how you would have expected mustache.js to know where partials are located.

Deleted user · Answer 4 · Mon Mar 29 2021 08:25:47 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

The fact is I don't know, and that's why I asked for your help!

Phillip Johnsen · Answer 5 · Mon Mar 29 2021 19:48:34 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Ahh okey.

I can personally imagine this behaving in lots of different ways. The obvious factors would be folder structure, filenames and extensions. Those will vary from project to project, and what would work for the majority of projects isn't obvious until we've got insights from many projects.

With that in mind, I'm very hesitant implementing anything into mustache.js itself. At least until we've got more use cases at hand. And removing the -p argument from the command line tool we've got wouldn't help much as far as I'm concerned.

But, the above does not mean we can't help you. There's usually several ways to solve a challenge. More concrete details about what you're facing would be helpful tho..

Are you able to run commands like $ node a-custom-script-using-mustache.js in your environment? Or are you strictly enforced to use the mustache executable?
How does your folder structure & filenames look like?

Deleted user · Answer 6 · Tue Mar 30 2021 09:44:57 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Jan, thank you very much for your reply! 1. I'm sure that I will use the command line interface rather than custom JavaScript scripts to compile our templates, and we are certain to use mustache.js rather than any other language implementation of {{ mustache }}. 2. We don't use partials from node_mosules/ directories for now, our partials are either relative path to current template or use absolute paths. The file extension is either .html or .mustache, we prefer .html because I think that mustache is only a useful syntax extension of HTML.

…

-------- 原始邮件 -------- 发件人： Phillip Johnsen ***@***.***> 日期： 2021年3月29日周一 19:48 收件人： "janl/mustache.js" ***@***.***> 抄送： d892fc ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***> 主题： Re: [janl/mustache.js] Please consider remove the -p flag! (#774) Ahh okey. I can personally imagine this behaving in lots of different ways. The obvious factors would be folder structure, filenames and extensions. Those will vary from project to project, and what would work for the majority of projects isn't obvious until we've got insights from many projects. With that in mind, I'm very hesitant implementing anything into mustache.js itself. At least until we've got more use cases at hand. And removing the -p argument from the command line tool we've got wouldn't help much as far as I'm concerned. But, the above does not mean we can't help you. There's usually several ways to solve a challenge. More concrete details about what you're facing would be helpful tho.. 1. Are you able to run commands like $ node a-custom-script-using-mustache.js in your environment? Or are you strictly enforced to use the mustache executable? 2. How does your folder structure & filenames look like? ― You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#774 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI3IO2XFWBPICIZNSFA3DTDTGBZLHANCNFSM4Z6A4TJQ>.

Phillip Johnsen · Answer 7 · Wed Mar 31 2021 04:14:41 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Thanks for sharing!

A custom .js script could do what you're looking for in many different ways, without being overly complex. Let me know if you'd reconsider using such a .js script that you'd be in total control of ofcourse, rather than the mustache executable directly.

Deleted user · Answer 8 · Wed Mar 31 2021 07:59:49 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

Janl, you are right. But I still prefer using the executable, because it is easier to use for us.

…

-------- 原始邮件 -------- 发件人： Phillip Johnsen ***@***.***> 日期： 2021年3月31日周三 04:14 收件人： "janl/mustache.js" ***@***.***> 抄送： d892fc ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***> 主题： Re: [janl/mustache.js] Please consider remove the -p flag! (#774) Thanks for sharing! A custom .js script could do what you're looking for in many different ways, without being overly complex. Let me know if you'd reconsider using such a .js script that you'd be in total control of ofcourse, rather than the mustache executable directly. ― You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#774 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI3IO2X57LJ3AMXXF2ESH5LTGIWMDANCNFSM4Z6A4TJQ>.

Deleted user · Answer 9 · Wed Mar 31 2021 08:09:57 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

A custom script is acceptable, but not my choice. The logic is actuall analysis the {{> too/bar/baz }} directives, and find out where they are located. We don't have to remove the -p command line flag, we can just ignore its values.

…

-------- 原始邮件 -------- 发件人： Phillip Johnsen ***@***.***> 日期： 2021年3月31日周三 04:14 收件人： "janl/mustache.js" ***@***.***> 抄送： d892fc ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***> 主题： Re: [janl/mustache.js] Please consider remove the -p flag! (#774) Thanks for sharing! A custom .js script could do what you're looking for in many different ways, without being overly complex. Let me know if you'd reconsider using such a .js script that you'd be in total control of ofcourse, rather than the mustache executable directly. ― You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#774 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI3IO2X57LJ3AMXXF2ESH5LTGIWMDANCNFSM4Z6A4TJQ>.

Deleted user · Answer 10 · Wed Mar 31 2021 10:12:25 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

While, it is not a must to implement the enhanced version of the mustache executable. We found a third solution to this. A web compiler normally has there parts, a checker, a complier and a minifier. For example, rollup.js compiler has rollup-plugin-eslint to integrate ESLint, rollup-plugin-terser to integrate terser. At the end, we found PostHTML like rollup.js has a simple plugin named as post html-plugin-include can do the job. So we don't need mustache executable to implement the feature we have been talking about. The mian reason is, for now, I only need the partial including feature of mustache, I like mustache's syntax style, it's simply and looks handsome. We use two temple engines in our project, one for temple designing, the other for use in HTTP request handlers. The designer gives bundles of HTML temples, not a lot of partials.

…

-------- 原始邮件 -------- 发件人： Phillip Johnsen ***@***.***> 日期： 2021年3月31日周三 04:14 收件人： "janl/mustache.js" ***@***.***> 抄送： d892fc ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***> 主题： Re: [janl/mustache.js] Please consider remove the -p flag! (#774) Thanks for sharing! A custom .js script could do what you're looking for in many different ways, without being overly complex. Let me know if you'd reconsider using such a .js script that you'd be in total control of ofcourse, rather than the mustache executable directly. ― You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#774 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI3IO2X57LJ3AMXXF2ESH5LTGIWMDANCNFSM4Z6A4TJQ>.

Phillip Johnsen · Answer 11 · Sun Apr 04 2021 04:37:26 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

We found a third solution to this.

Great to hear you found something that suites your needs!

Handlebars.js has also been a great alternative for those who like mustache, but wants more opportunities.

I'm closing this issue for now, although for those who stumble upon this issue later and would like something similar, share your thoughts as feedback and other concrete use cases is a requirement for make this happen in mustache.js itself.

Deleted user · Answer 12 · Sun Apr 04 2021 08:50:33 GMT+0800 (China Standard Time)

I like mustache more, handlebars is too heavy.