On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Brendan Quinn wrote:
> Even though I have almost no idea what's going on here (and therefore
> all my opinions should be taken with an entire shaker of salt), I tend
> to agree with Justin here. Please be *very* careful what features you
> add to this system "just because we can".
That's exactly why it's not part of the core right now. It hasn't
been decided by the group as to whether it should be included.
That's why it's up for a vote. Things aren't being added willy-nilly
because we feel like it.
> Remember, if we wanted enough rope to hang ourselves, we'd all be off
> using JSP for our templates anyway. The fact that we want something
> cleaner, safer, and more structured than JSP is the reason why we're all
> interested in WebMacro/Velocity in the first place.
>
> Right?
In regard to the macros you're wrong. You can't define any new
directives with macros. You can only use what already exists in
the template language. I see them mainly as a convenience for
saving the designer from cutting and pasting. Being able
to reuse bits of template code with having to resort to
using #include.
If you are going to suggest that by the addition of user
defined macros that Velocity becomes less clean, safe, or
structured then you should give some clear examples of
how you see this to be the case. You may well be correct,
but the mere statement that you tend to agree with Justin,
or that macros might possibly compromise Velocity doesn't
mean anything without examples, or a reasonable argument
of some sort. I think Geir was more than clear as to
what macros do.
For now I'll take the shaker of salt. Until you come
with a better argument :-)
jvz.
