Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> on 9/24/2000 3:12 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about those of us (obviously foolish souls) that don't use Turbine?
>
> We are providing an excellent solution to solve that problem that you are
> discussing. If you don't like it, then you are going to be forced to come up
> with your own solution or help us change our solution to match your tastes.
Just to make it clear to me, are you saying that Turbine specifically is
the solution to allow cleaner handling of an undefined reference in
general Velocity template processing?
If so, I don't like it.
Where my thinking came from was that if the solution was cleanly
expressed within the template language, i.e.
$!email <==> #if($email) { $email }
then why not produce a mechanism that allows one to do that w/o having
to repeat the code all over the template? That's all.
Currently, I am not using Turbine, and have run across the issue that
started this discussion this morning, and used #if(){} rather than
bringing another framework into my project.
> That is exactly what this group is all about. You can either choose to play
> with us and gain the power from that or choose to play on your own and
> continually re-invent our wheel.
>
> I'm not trying to be harsh, just honest. There is only 24 hours in the day
> and we are trying our best to come up with solutions that work for the
> broader whole.
Honestly, harsh is fine. I am also interested in the best solution for
me and the whole, and don't really quite understand the drawbacks of a
user-expandable template engine. I appreciate all the effort that
people go to, and wish I could find the time and a place to contribute.
Anyway, I guess I haven't been reading closely enough, luking on this
list, nor do I seem to understand what 'playing with you' means. I was
trying to play with the velocity project. I thought that velocity was
supposed to be the apache foundation's version of a template engine
similar to webmacro, and Turbine is an application framework that uses
it. I don't understand why the inverse should be a requirement.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
