I had not read that one. The last I read was several days ago when you
stated that you were beginning to remove all of the WebMacro integration due
to the licensing issues. There has been a lot of email on this thread over
the last week which is not strictly related to the usage and development of
Turbine which makes it hard to follow every thread. I already get enough
email as it is without reading thru reams of flame mail looking for a few
important topics. I appreciate your effort on this however and will try to
follow it more closely. Since, as you mentioned, this is not a democracy, I
am not as interested in the details of the negotiations and decisions as in
getting the decision itself and the reasons why so I can decide where I need
to go. Good luck with Velocity, maybe I'll stop by sometime to get
involved, but it will have to be after the next few weeks.
Christian Nichols
Director of Product Development
Q Strategies, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Stevens
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 5:22 PM
To: Turbine
Subject: Re: Webmacro and Velocity and Turbine
on 8/27/2000 5:11 PM, "Christian Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that this has been debated to death, but I thought that I would
try
> to bring into the picture the view of (at least) one developer (and
company)
> that isn't as interested in modifying or developing Turbine, WebMacro,
> Velocity et al. as in using them to create an application. We are only 3
> weeks away from delivering a major product using Jetspeed/Turbine as the
> framework and you guys aren't helping me at all at this point. Currently
we
> are dependent on WebMacro for templating in our code base.
Actually, we are helping you out. Not only did I come up with a solution for
you, but it also prompted Justin to see the light.
> My biggest issue
> has been the licensing issues with WebMacro that have prevented us from
> shipping our product which uses them.
You and me both dude. :-)
> Now it seems that Justin would like to
> fix that (belatedly). However much I agree that its a little late in
coming,
> it is a fix and gives me something to go on until Velocity is ready. At
this
> point, I am not counting on Velocity at all as no dates have been
published
> (AFAIK) about when a production ready release will be ready.
As with all OSS projects, the more help we get, the sooner it will be ready.
:-) Hint hint.
> WebMacro
> (despite its so-called bad parser) is a useable option and I would not
like to
> see it's integration removed from Turbine as I will simply have to
reimplement
> it.
I think that re-implment is a bad term given that it is already implemented.
I have already stated that we are not going to remove the WM code until we
can replace it with Velocity. On top of it, if we do remove it, there is
still no reason why I can't put the code up on Working-dogs.com.
> I would avoid making this change until Velocity becomes a viable (i.e.
> production ready) alternative. Anything else is simply a hinderance to
the
> ready acceptance of Turbine as a viable framework.
Please read my posts...I already stated that we shouldn't remove it until we
have a replacement that is working and viable.
-jon
--
Scarab -
Java Servlet Based - Open Source
Bug/Issue Tracking System
<http://scarab.tigris.org/>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
