I'm a latecomer to this, but I qualify as an "interested party". There is a sizeable community of folks (including myself) using the VelocityViewServlet with Maverick. A runtime dependency on struts.jar would be a massive mistake - but you seem to acknowledge that.
As long as there is no runtime dependency, the question for me is, how much is the Struts-specific code going to bloat the jar? Is the Struts-related code (like Struts itself) going to inflate wildly out of control or is it just a handful of tools that are "done"? How often will the Struts-related code result in new releases unrelated to the VelocityViewServlet? If I had a vote, it would probably be -0. Jeff Schnitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ok, here's where things stand so far as i can see: > > Commiters: > +1 nathan > +1 gabe > -? geir (sounded like a -1) > > Contributors: > +1 anthony > +? tim (not sure where you ended up) > -? bill (sounded like -0) > > so, at this point, conversation has died. i answered geir and bill's > opposing remarks, but they do not appear to have changed their minds. since > geir's vote is binding according to apache rules, i guess i can't go forward > with this. :-/ > > now, i must admit i'm a little frustrated by the lack of response to my > arguments in favor, and i don't want this to continue to hold things up > around here. so, being a notoriously stubborn and thick-headed person i'm > going to lay out my argument one last time (and include the struts stuff as > i secretly wanted all along) and then pathetically beg the opposition to > change. > > ---------- > Reasons We Should Fold The Tools/* Trees Into One: > 1. This project is quite small. Building/distributing 3 jars is serious > overkill. > > 2. It makes life easier for the many who use all three trees > (tools,view,struts). > > 3. The most (almost the only?) active committer supports this. (yeah, it's > just me, but that's gotta count for something, right?) > > ---------- > Reasons Against This And Their Counter-Arguments: > 1. Those using only tools/tools would have to drag around servlet.jar and > struts.jar and whatnot. > > Counter: Those just *using* tools/tools will (at some point soon hopefully) > be able to just download a binary of velocity-tools.jar and use only those > classes which interest them. If they don't use classes dependent on > servlet.jar or struts.jar, then they don't need those jars. > > 2. Those wishing to compile, then use just tools/tools will have to muck > around with servlet.jar and struts.jar and whatnot. > > Counter: For those checking out the project source and compiling it, we > already include servlet.jar and struts.jar in CVS. They needn't do anything > but check out the module and compile it. Furthermore, if people really only > want to compile the tools/tools or tools/view classes, then we can carefully > choosing the package/paths of those files and add Ant targets to compile/jar > only those classes. If that's what it takes, I'll put in the work for that > myself. My plan for the paths is (in order of dependency): > generic tools - org.apache.velocity.tools.generic.* > ViewTool tools - org.apache.velocity.tools.view.tools.* > struts tools - org.apache.velocity.tools.struts.* > > 3. It's theoretically better to have separate places for non-view tools and > struts tools. Doesn't that just make sense? > > Counter: Theoretical is nice, but practical makes people happier. In other > words, is it really better to cave to the "needs" or "desires" of some > imagined theoretical users, or the interests of the active developers and > contributers? Remember, so far no user is able to compile tools/tools > independent of tools/view because of the misplaced ParameterParser and NO > ONE has complained about that! > > 4. Why change the status quo? We don't want to break backwards > compatibility. > > Counter: We've released nothing so far. We don't presently distribute > binaries or have any real official documentation on the current state of > things out there. We have absolutely no compunction to keep things B.C. > yet. > > ---------- > and now comes the pathetic begging.... > > please support me in this!!! > please, please, please, please, pretty please with a cherry on top!!!! > > :) > > Nathan Bubna > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
