Closed pgwa closed 6 years ago
Great idea, definitely will do that. Also gives the user the ability to add extra data to the config that could be passed to the template.
While I think adding some of config settings to templates context is a good thing. I don't think it makes sense to jam extra data into the config since, well it is config.
Probably one option is to allow stating of .toml
files that have extra data to be added to context and they will be loaded and passed to the templates accordingly.
So, I favor exposing some of the config values to template context not the whole config object as is.
The reason I'm thinking of jamming extra data in the config is that it mimics what Hugo does, and it gives people a one-stop-shop for customizing the output of their templates. Like Hugo, I hope people will create templates to share with others, that then people can customize via the configuration file. Why have two configuration files when you could just have one?
Fair point, last time i used hugo was a long time ago, so I can't say much about that.
If the goal is to allow the templates authors to share, what happens if there is shared templates specific data? Not all data is configuration.
I get it to have one config with everything makes things a lot easy to manage.
This is fixed by #25 :) . And it's in the v0.2 release
I could not find a way to get config vars from
gnorm.toml
. For example, in one of my templates I needed the value ofIncludeTables
fromgnorm.toml
. Maybe something like{{.Config.IncludeTables}}
. or{{config "IncludeTables"}}
.