Saturday, June 14, 2003, 8:38:32 PM, Jonathan Revusky wrote: > Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: >> Daniel Dekany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>>>Maybe we pull FM back in for 2.4-dev... :-) >> >> >>>The ":-)" indicates that this can be only a joke? >> >> >> No. Honestly, we did remove FreeMaker because noone that uses Turbine >> seems to use FreeMaker as its View portion. The code simply started to >> rot. [snip] > Of course, aside from the fact that people were specifically told not to > use it (as if that's not enough!) the other reason that nobody was using > it was surely that it was not kept in synch with the main FreeMarker > codebase. It only worked against an extremely obsolete version of > FreeMarker. Basically, the FreeMarker support you had was the moral > equivalent of supporting java, but by supporting JDK 1.0.2. Nobody > excited about Java would gravitate towards a product that only supported > JDK 1.0.2. They want to use a reasonably up-to-date version. Similarly, > nobody who liked FreeMarker (and eager to use the new features in 2.x.) > would gravitate towards Turbine and be stuck with using FreeMarker 1.5.2 > or whatever it was. [snip]
Well, to be fair, I have to note that it's a very hard to integrate FM with any product that is used by many users (as opposed to a single or few customers). Because, FM milestone releases are typically not, or at best not fully backward compatible. Thus, if I update FM in my product (that comes with freemarker out-of-the-box), then there is high chance that my product also will be non-backward compatible. Bang! It's a big problem. However, I don't believe that it was why Turbine people has discontinued FreeMarker support. Most probably they was not even aware of this issue of FM 2.x series. -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
