Any hope that you will continue work on this? (Now that we have the try.freemarker.org at ASF, anything you do can be deployed pretty much immediately.)
Thursday, August 18, 2016, 8:00:40 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Thursday, August 18, 2016, 9:11:34 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > >> Hey Daniel, >> >> I have made the changes you have mentioned in the UI side. Yet >> a quick question, You have mentioned auto import shouldn't be a >> checkbox. But you have mentioned like >> "[name ] [ ] Auto import [ ] Auto include" . >> >> We should have it as text box right ? > > Right, only a text box, no checkbox is needed for auto-import. > Something like: > > Auto import [prefix ] [ ] Auto include > >> Regarding the Configuration , I see that we have a freeMarkerConfig >> (instance of Configuration) and we actually build a Template and >> TemplateConfiguration and is attached to the freemarkerConfig. >> >> Now in case of additional templates, If we create a Template (with >> name) and TemplateConfiguration for each and attach to the >> freeMarkerConfig (main configuration). > > For now we have no reason to use separate TemplateConfiguration-s, as > there are no UI controls to set any pre-template settings. What we > will need is a separate Configuration for each request when(!) there > are additional templates. That's because the TemplateLoader and > template cache exists on the Configuration level, and each request > will have a different set of additional templates. > >> Let me know if I am getting it wrong. >> >> Pradeep. >> >> >> >> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:22 AM >> To: Pradeep Murugesan >> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) >> >> Tuesday, August 2, 2016, 2:39:45 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> Got the client side changes and have pushed @ >>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/freemarker-online/tree/additionalTemplates. >>> >>> Attached the screenshot of how it will look . Kindly let me know if there >>> are any changes. >> >> I have just realized that auto-import shouldn't be a checkbox but a >> text imput, as you have to specify the import prefix... >> >> Now that I see it with 2 additional templates, I think the "+" button >> has some usability disadvantages. People expect the new template to >> appear after the last template (as opposed to be inserted before the >> first one). But the "+" button is always at top. So it would be better >> after the last template. But then it's not entirely obvious what it >> adds. So, how about having only this under the main template textarea >> (note that there's no "Addition templates" title): >> >> [Add template] to #import/#include >> >> where [Add template] is a button, and the text after it is a gray >> hint. Now if someone adds a template, you will have: >> >> Template to #import/#include: >> [name ] [ ] Auto import [ ] Auto include >> [Enter template, like <#macro greet name>Hello ${name}!</#macro>] >> >> [Add template] to #import/#include >> >> So as you can see, the the [Add template] button will be always at the >> bottom, where the new template will be added if you press it. (If >> someone adds multiple templates, there will be a "Template to >> #import/#include:" label before each.) >> >> Note that I have also changed the textarea example text. >> >> >>> I am going through the server side requirements/changes that needs >>> to be done. Will come back once I have my questions ready. >> >> One tricky thing will be that FM-Online uses a shared singleton >> Configuration currently, but the additional templates are named, so >> the Configuration need to be aware of them. I guess the best will be >> just creating a new drop-away Configuration instance in case there are >> additional templates. (The other alternative is using a TLS-aware >> TemplateChache, but that's probably too tricky for sparing those CPU >> cycles.) (Yet another alternative is supporting Environment-local >> named templates in FM 2.3.26... but that's the hardest of all.) >> >>> Pradeep. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:39:01 AM >>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) >>> >>> Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:11:37 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Daniel, >>>> >>>> Got a chance to work on the task. I have come up with something >>>> here http://codepen.io/pradeepmurugesan/pen/oLPNgQ. >>> >>> Looks fine. >>> >>>> I have the following questions. >>>> >>>> 1. The pure css used by the online validator is pretty old . Do we >>>> have any idea to replace the same with the latest version of >>>> pure(http://purecss.io/) or bootstrap. >>> >>> You can update Pure if you want to, or use Bootstrap CSS... I don't >>> know either. If you have experience with them, I will trust your >>> judgement. >>> >>>> 2. How many such template can the user add. like can he keep on >>>> adding it or we are going to put any restrictions there. >>> >>> To keep users from killing the server, let's say, the main template >>> plus at most 3 importable/includable templates. >>> >>>> Kindly let me know any changes in the pen and also answer to the above. >>>> >>>> Pradeep. >>>> >>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:59:34 AM >>>> To: Daniel Dekany >>>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) >>>> >>>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:24:21 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote: >>>> >>>>> I should >>>> >>>> I meant "It should". >>>> >>>>> support adding arbitrary templates. As I imagine it, there >>>>> would be an "Add template" button, and when you press it, it adds an >>>>> extra text area, which has a template name input, an "auto import" >>>>> checkbox, and an "auto include" checkbox, and a "Remove template" >>>>> button over it. >>>> >>>> Another thing... we should add an "Incompatible improvements" dropdown >>>> after the existing ones, which preselects the value of >>>> Configuration.getVersion(). >>>> >>>> >>>>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 7:24:19 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool.. I will start with adding the extra template name thing to >>>>>> the online template tester. (#import and #include) . I would need >>>>>> more pointers on the same. How have you visualised the same. >>>>>> Meaning , How the users can import other templates, we will give >>>>>> provision to add other templates or we have some predefined >>>>>> templates loaded , so that they can import the same ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:02:38 PM >>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: Graduation issues >>>>>> >>>>>> Happy to see you back! >>>>>> >>>>>> There are things to do, of course. >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't yet merged in your contribution with XML siblings (so it >>>>>> won't be in 2.3.25 - sorry about that, next time), and AFAIR there >>>>>> were some wrinkles to work on. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have done some of the planned improvements on >>>>>> http://freemarker-online.kenshoo.com/ (mostly to draw attention to the >>>>>> outputFormat setting of 2.3.24), but there are other things to do. >>>>>> Apart from what was discussed earlier, I think supporting adding extra >>>>>> templates with names would be handy, because then people can play >>>>>> around with #import and #include. >>>>>> >>>>>> And then of course, there's http://freemarker.org/contribute.html with >>>>>> even more things to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 12:27:01 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Daniel & team, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry that I was dormant for a long time after a very short tent >>>>>>> @ Freemaker. I am out of some critical issues and have some bandwidth >>>>>>> from now on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kindly let me know if there is anything I could help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:48:55 AM >>>>>>> To: Sergio Fernández >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Graduation issues >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least >>>>>>> I will tell what do I think about the state of the project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me. >>>>>>> What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug >>>>>>> that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the >>>>>>> owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc. >>>>>>> But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things >>>>>>> would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's >>>>>>> backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is >>>>>>> actually 14 years old). But of course that's just slow death if a >>>>>>> project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to >>>>>>> tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to >>>>>>> maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be >>>>>>> done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch >>>>>>> long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance >>>>>>> for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache >>>>>>> projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of >>>>>>> project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want >>>>>>> to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and >>>>>>> then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines >>>>>>> isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers >>>>>>> around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't >>>>>>> hang around in the incubator forever. So, do you believe there's any >>>>>>> chance to graduate with the current developer base? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Monday, June 13, 2016, 8:15:11 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Besides the technical discussion for 2.3.25-incubating, after that >>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>> you may start to discuss a possible graduation. We have to discuss many >>>>>>>> aspects (specially growth of the community), but technically speaking >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> podling is capable os casting releases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
