[TYPO3-templavoila] RFC: access TV field-values in TS without stdWrap

[Martin Klaus]

Hi Dmitry,

Could you please tell me, if you see a chance to integrate this helpful 
feature
based on my current implementation. (wich needs no additional 
TS-preprocessing,
respects the current way of TV output rendering and is done in 8 simple 
lines of code
in class.tx_templavoila_pi1.php).

regards,
Martin


"Martin Klaus" <klausm at in.tum.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:mailman.1.1157676746.23740.typo3-project-templavoila at lists.netfielders.de...
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>>> I understand your concerns, but even the default Template TS-parsing 
>>> from t3lib/class.t3lib_tstemplate.php
>>> does this type of TypoScript preprocessing to merge the Constants with 
>>> the Setup code.
>>> This is not even possible with TV's TypoScript-parsing.
>>
>> It is possible for constants.
>
> Yes, you are right, there is already a solution for Constant Substitution 
> with <TypoScript_constants><[constant_name]>. With this feature you can 
> include constants that are locally definded and constants from "global" 
> Typoscript Template, but yet it's not possible to set the current TV field 
> value as constant.
>
> That's why I've enhanced the current solution by an additional property 
> for <[constant_name]>. This allows the constants to be wrapped by stdWrap, 
> and therefore the possibillity to set TV field values as constants.
> [ See description and implementation: 
> http://bugs.typo3.org/view.php?id=4176
> class.tx_templavoila_pi1.php (Lines 529-537) ]
>
> My solution extends <[constant_name]> with a <stdWrap>-Tag:
>
> <TypoScript_constants>
>  <[constant_name]>
>    <stdWrap>
>      some_TS_code (i.e. field=current_TV_field)
>    </stdWrap>
>  </[constant_name]>
> </TypoScript_constants>
>
>>>> As a user I like the idea but as developer - do not. TV uses typo3's 
>>>> parser for typoscript. To implement this substitution TV will have to 
>>>> implement a preprocessor. This will make TV very different in TS 
>>>> processing from the rest of the system.
>
> With the new implementation you have the advantage from the user's point 
> of view and a
> simple, consistent implementation from the developers point of view.
>
> regards,
> Martin
>