Have you seen this post ? Thats going in the same direction I think, and I like the idea of being able to use the template for an array.
http://www.dennydotnet.com/post/JavaScript-Model-Objects-JMO---An-Idea.aspx Otherwise, a more complete, non jquery based one: http://code.google.com/p/trimpath/wiki/JavaScriptTemplates X+ On Aug 19, 9:27 pm, Pops <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 19, 2:09 pm, Yehuda Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It would be trivial to change the template field syntax. In the next > > revision of this thing, I'll probably just make it configurable. > > That is a good idea Yehuda. Offer a Begin/End tag because I think > there are other server-side processors with different begin/end > takes. Off hand, I've seen: > > @xxxx; > <!{xxxx}> Not sure if I have this one right, but I saw > something like that. > > Maybe others can chime in what info. > > I want to share some test results - Good and bad news (for me). > > As I mentioned, one reason for exploring jQuery was our strategy to > explore moving of server template processing to the client in the most > 'unobstrusive' way possible. Minimum changes required by our > customers with their existing WCT templates. I've been learning every > aspect of jQuery doing pieces of this and that all leading to putting > all the parts together and begin applying it and do some comparing > testing. The main goal was to explore the reduction of server overhead > by moving this template processing to the client. > > Well, thanks to your plugin I was able to do a local server quick > test. Your similar template syntax allowed me take existing WCT > templates, do global changes to the @@ macros to {{}} syntax and do > some rendering testing. > > Using Firefox profiling, as expected. > > - The server processing was reduced, > - However, total rendering time increased dramatically. > > I need to next test this across the network, but for the local server > test, it was 15ms vs ~550ms to 1secs. But from a server standpoint, > it was definitely a drastic improviement with the AJAX request was not > even measurable. The high time was in JS template processing. > > It might be a non-issue as machines get faster, but depending on how > noticable any "sluggish" displaying is seen by end users, it may raise > comments, especially when its not sluggish today. :-) > > Anyway, this is good. Thanks. > > -- > HLS
