[Grok-dev] megrok.chameleon template engine

[Sebastian Ware]

Did I understand it correctly that Chameleon only supports TALES  
python expressions?

Mvh Sebastian

23 feb 2009 kl. 22.40 skrev Uli Fouquet:

> Hi there,
>
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Thanks for doing this work Uli! I really like all the activity
>> surrounding alternative template languages in Grok now. For a while I
>> thought the work at the Neanderthal sprint to support other template
>> languages was not really going to be used by anyone, as it was very
>> quiet surrounding the topic, but it looks like things are changing.
>
> It was really easy. Thanks to all who brought the templating-support
> forward!
>
>> Uli Fouquet wrote:
>>> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>>> Previously Uli Fouquet wrote:
>>>>> It provides support for chameleon-driven Zope page templates and  
>>>>> also
>>>>> for Genshi templates. Chameleon is the template engine also used  
>>>>> by
>>>>> repoze.bft and it (chameleon) is said to be faster than regular  
>>>>> Zope
>>>>> page templates.
>>>> By a factor of 12 currently if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>> Hm, currently I cannot reproduce such speedup. Maybe my  
>>> implementation
>>> is really bad or we have a more general problem with template- 
>>> handling
>>> in Grok/Zope.
>>
>> It could be that non-template handling time is dominating in your  
>> test
>> application?
>>
>
> Of course! The template rendering time looks minimal compared with the
> main publishing stuff.
>
> But in my (silly, incomplete, non-authorative) profiling tests I only
> compared the times for template rendering with following results
> rendering the standard 'congratulations' template (no substitutions,  
> no
> TAL-expressions):
>
> * with ZPT template: 2.10% (of whole request)
>
> * with CPT template: 0.65% (of whole request)
>
> If we reflect the profiler impact (> 50% of a request), this means  
> that
> we're talking about a piece that with regular ZPT eats more than  
> 4.2% of
> (non-profiling) request time while with CPT it costs you only about  
> 1.3%
> (for this particular template).
>
> This, however, is far away from the 12x speedup I'd dream of (but,  
> hey,
> more than three times faster isn't _that_ bad, is it?).
>
>> Anyway, I'd like to see lots more people doing lots more profiling  
>> with
>> Grok so we can track down issues like this and gain a better
>> understanding for where time is going now, and where we should spend
>> efforts to make things faster.
>
> I might start with a profiling HOWTO, that brings the pieces together
> one needs.
>
> Maybe we should share some statistics or graphics somewhere? On the
> Grok-site maybe?
>
> Best regars,
>
> -- 
> Uli
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grok-dev mailing list
> Grok-dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/grok-dev