On 29/05/2015 04:07, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Personally, I think that Maven is much better than Ant, and
switching back would be a step backwards.
Not necessarily, if we can keep both build tools working. That's extra
work, but not from the same people...
Claude
2015-05-29 17:21 GMT+02:00 Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com:
I am also interested in SLF4J support (sorry, Chris, but if you're
going to propose switching to commons-logging, you might as well go
with SLF4J: http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#why_new_project) and my long
term goals include
It is used on trunk (2.0), but not in the 1.x branches.
On 05/29/2015 11:30 AM, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
There's a maven plugin for javacc. We use it at work. If maven isn't
compiling the grammar, it's possible to make it work. I'll try to take a
look at this.
Will
On Friday, May 29,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com wrote:
If Mike wants to revive the Ant build for 1.7, i have no problem with that.
I do remember the JJParserState issue when rebuilding the parser though.
Always bugged me, but i never saw an easy fix.
My first try at an easy fix
I did a large amount of work last year on the Velocity 1.7 branch, split
it into a main project and sub projects that integrated with other
components, updated the packages, switched to slf4j and got it building
under Maven. I am using it in an Android project I am trying to
finish. That has
My updated Velocity 1.7 (which I changed to 1.8) is now pushed to github.
https://github.com/fbrier/velocity
I did not do this earlier, because I did not want to start a new
project, just contribute my code. Based on all the comments in the
thread, I am throwing it out there. I know it
There's a maven plugin for javacc. We use it at work. If maven isn't
compiling the grammar, it's possible to make it work. I'll try to take a
look at this.
Will
On Friday, May 29, 2015, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2015-05-29 17:21 GMT+02:00 Mike Kienenberger
I probably shouldn't have suggested java language updates go into 1.7.1 or 1.8.
I take it back.
My goal was just to suggest that Velocity had fallen behind the times.
-Jacob
On 05/29/2015 10:33 AM, Nathan Bubna wrote:
I've had some Maven hiccups, but it was working for me the last time i
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Frederick N. Brier fnbr...@gmail.com wrote:
I did a large amount of work last year on the Velocity 1.7 branch, split it
into a main project and sub projects that integrated with other components,
updated the packages, switched to slf4j and got it building under
Yes, I use Velocity 1.3.1 and SLF4J, so I know how to make it all work
together but I have a whole lot of bridges and adaptors installed. :)
I'd prefer that we standardize on SLF4J if we're switching away from
log4j. It's easier for end-users.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Antonio Petrelli
I've had some Maven hiccups, but it was working for me the last time i
tried.
If Mike wants to revive the Ant build for 1.7, i have no problem with that.
I do remember the JJParserState issue when rebuilding the parser though.
Always bugged me, but i never saw an easy fix.
I agree that the goals
Mike,
On 5/28/15 3:41 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
No, maven isn't mandated. I'd be happy if we reverted back to ant as
Eclipse and ant is also what I use, and the only thing maven ever did
for me to was to make everything more complicated and slow.
For better or worse, it appears most of
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
Let me see how painful building 1.7 is right now. Are you saying that
the grammar does not work for you?
At some point, there was a regression where tab stopped being
recognized as whitespace between the
No, maven isn't mandated. I'd be happy if we reverted back to ant as
Eclipse and ant is also what I use, and the only thing maven ever did
for me to was to make everything more complicated and slow.
For better or worse, it appears most of us old-time velocity users who
would be motivated to
Jacob,
On 5/28/15 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid instructions
online, eventually I figured out:
$ svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/engine/trunk
velocity-master
$ cd velocity-master
$ mvn
However, almost all the
Jacob,
On 5/28/15 11:21 AM, Jacob Champlin wrote:
On 05/28/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Antonio Petrelli
But when repository branches do not build from source, releases do not
build from source, and no one seems to be around to suggest how it's
On 05/28/2015 03:00 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
Jacob,
On 5/28/15 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid instructions
online, eventually I figured out:
$ svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/engine/trunk
velocity-master
$ cd
That is all very weird... Am I the only one that never had any issues
building Velocity with Maven?
Building in Eclipse won't work, because Eclipse uses its own Maven
reimplementation, along with its own Maven plugins. Any real Maven
plugin won't work in Eclipse unless Eclipse re-implemented it.
I've been working with the various branches (1.3.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6.x,
1.7.x) to see what's out there and to determine what might need to be
done.
I was able to get things working this time for the most part. I think
the maven build tools threw me off track last time, but this time I
started with
I'm pretty heavily staffed right now on my day time job, but I'd be
happy to help anyhow. I have no problem at all dropping maven, which I
always found far too binding, and I seriously think it has a great role
in the current state of the project.
Claude
On 28/05/2015 22:09, Mike
On 05/28/2015 09:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid instructions online,
eventually I figured out:
$ svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/engine/trunk
On 05/28/2015 10:02 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2015-05-28 15:57 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com:
On 05/28/2015 09:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com
wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid instructions online,
eventually I figured out:
$ svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/engine/trunk
velocity-master
$ cd velocity-master
$ mvn
2015-05-28 15:57 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com:
On 05/28/2015 09:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com
wrote:
So building 2.0 has not gone well. There are no valid instructions
online,
eventually I figured out:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't complain, but maintain. You can fork it in Github, participate
with patches, you can even publish your fork (changing its name).
I was working for Velocity some years ago, remember that most of us
On 05/28/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Antonio Petrelli
But when repository branches do not build from source, releases do not
build from source, and no one seems to be around to suggest how it's
supposed to work, the Velocity development team
2015-05-28 16:31 GMT+02:00 Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't complain, but maintain. You can fork it in Github,
participate
with patches, you can even publish your fork (changing its
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Antonio Petrelli
But when repository branches do not build from source, releases do not
build from source, and no one seems to be around to suggest how it's
supposed to work, the Velocity development team destroys the ability
to attract and maintain new
2015-05-28 15:57 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com:
Funny thing is 10 years ago, I had the choice between Freemarker and
Velocity. I went with
Velocity because it was an Apache backed project, and I assumed it had
more developers maintaining it. So it was
software from an
On 05/28/2015 10:47 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2015-05-28 15:57 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com:
Funny thing is 10 years ago, I had the choice between Freemarker and
Velocity. I went with
Velocity because it was an Apache backed project, and I assumed it had
more developers
On 05/28/2015 11:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
I would like to point out that we are very happy running Velocity 1.7, in
fact there is not a single new feature we
It's a volunteer-driven scratch-your-own-itch ASF project. If we,
the contributors, want to develop a 1.8 branch, then the ASF way is to
let us do so.
Another group of contributors can work toward 2.0 if that's their need
and desire. Or not.
I'm willing to put in some documentation work if
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Jacob Champlin jac...@rentec.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
I would like to point out that we are very happy running Velocity 1.7, in
fact there is not a single new feature we want. So we agree
its a stable mature product that
trunk is stable, there are plans to release the 2.0, but so far none of
us found the time to publish it
Claude
On 27/05/2015 20:21, Jacob Champlin wrote:
I see that sdumitriu has been checking in trunk code to update
Velocity to newest common's libraries. This is something my team has
34 matches
Mail list logo
