On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: > Thursday, May 18, 2017, 10:01:23 PM, Michael Brohl wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I think these non-Jiraed issues should be created in Jira. Maybe they >> can attract contributors? > > Currently http://freemarker.org/contribute.html is were tasks for > contributors are listed. But those are FM2 issues. Current FM3 issues > are mostly too involved for casual contributors, as it's mostly FM2 > cleanup and refactoring... hence no issues. But the goal is to get to > a point where more "accessible" issues can be produced. (A more > accessible code base is one of the main goals of FM3 after all.) > > Speaking of which, soon there will be one. Anyone is interested in FM3 > Spring integration? The goal is that FM3's builder-based configuration > can be used seamlessly for creating the Spring beans. So certainly a > freemarker-spring module need to be added, which extends some classes > to implement FactoryBean interface and such. Also some configuration > defaults, like the TemplateLoader need to be different for sure, and > we need a TemplateLoader that uses Spring's Resource API. (I will > create an issue for it after I have polished the configuration API a > bit more.)
Yes, I am interested in FM3 spring integration. One question is, are we going to replace spring framework's default freemarker view support [1] by freemarker-spring in FM3? Anyway, I'll happily help with this as soon as you create an issue. Regards, Woonsan [1] https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/html/view.html#view-velocity-contextconfig > >> Best regards, >> >> Michael Brohl >> ecomify GmbH >> www.ecomify.de >> >> >> Am 17.05.17 um 14:29 schrieb Daniel Dekany: >>> Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 2:26:29 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah I closed it because it was a proposal for a PoC which you pretty much >>>> got done while I slacked :) Should I re-open? If yes then perhaps it should >>>> be renamed by removing the "PoC" part? >>> No, then it was right to close it after all. You can create an issue >>> for resolving the TODO-s and polishing the stuff it you think, though >>> honestly FM3 has tons and tons of non-Jiraed things to do... What >>> really counts if someone is interested in actually working on them. >>> (I'm not saying this to point at you or anyone. It's unpaid work etc., >>> and if the project can't attract contributors, it's the fault of the >>> project and of its key persons, like me. The aspect that concerns me >>> is that if I do all the technical stuff, even if I was some kind of >>> superhuman one man army (and BTW I'm not) who can grind through >>> everything in time regardless, that will be a serious problem when it >>> comes to Apache incubation voting...) >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I saw the Jira issue for migrating to Gradle was closed, but to be >>>>> clear it's far from done. Like, a major TODO is building the release >>>>> artifacts; the root project should do that (or should that be yet >>>>> another sub-project instead?). >>>>> >>>>> The second most important deficiency is producing all the 3 Maven >>>>> artifacts for each published module (the usual artifact plus src and >>>>> javadoc). Currently we only produce one artifact per module, and it's >>>>> not even signed. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I have factored out Manual generation into freemarker-manual >>>>> (non-published module). There's also a TODO there as its build doesn't >>>>> produce anything yet. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Daniel Dekany >> >> > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany >
