> For 2.x that's too late (or for 2.3.x at least). freemarker.jar contains a > mix of stuff (for some 23 years now). Like classes compiled with different > Java versions, and classes that depend on a different version of the same > artifact.
I don't see why this would be a reason against approach 2. Yes, it's too late to not have mixed stuff in the jar files. But that doesn't mean we *need* to add more mixed stuff. I'm not even sure this approach would work at all. And this is not a technical reason. On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, 23:26 Daniel Dekany, <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please don't make freemarker "special" to use and choose the path > > every one else already went. > > For 2.x that's too late (or for 2.3.x at least). freemarker.jar contains a > mix of stuff (for some 23 years now). Like classes compiled with different > Java versions, and classes that depend on a different version of the same > artifact. (This is coming from the old times when users just copied jar-s > into some lib directory manually, and then this was convenient for > them.) The really good approach for this would be a more modular structure > (as it is on the "3" branch), like you have freemarker-core that has > (basically) no dependencies, and then freemarker-jakarta-servlet.jar, and > then you don't even need classifiers for this. But anyway, that's not for > 2.3.x for sure. >
