Yes, this makes sense. -Ben
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: > Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 10:52:41 PM, Mark Malynn wrote: > > [snip] > > 3) I agree that using the well known json field 'templateName' seems > > 'hacky' (from a freemarker point of view). However, from the point of > view > > of the maven plugin it works nice. It provides the flexibility I need > with > > the minimum fuss. I will entertain another mechanism as long as it > supports > > my main use case. > [snip] > > The problem with that is that it doesn't work if you happen to need a > "tempalteName" field in your actual data. Yes, that's unlikely, but > take it as a demonstration of why it's not correct. The "correct" solution > is like this: > > { > "templateName": "foo.ftl", > "otherFutureMavenPluginKey": "something", > "dataModel": { > /* your application-specific stuff */ > "myString": "a string", > "myNumber": 1, > ... > } > } > > Note how it allows adding new keys (like "otherFutureMavenPluginKey") > without breaking backward compatibility. > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > > -- Benjamin Grant Jackson
