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.
Well, we did (and still do) have a backward-compatibility flag that imitated *most* of the quirks of FreeMarker classic (1.x). So we have been fairly dilligent about this. People could use the template engine in that quirky mode and then gradually make sure that their templates worked in the default mode.
Of course, OTOH, backward compatibility with FM 1.x would not matter very much if, as claimed, nobody was using FM in conjunction with Turbine in the first place! :-)
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.
Probably not. Henning can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not get the impression that they made the slightest attempt to use more current versions of FM.
After all, the authors of the various frameworks that now support FM are present off-and-on in our community: The "Open for Business" people (Dave and Andy), Anthony Eden (Jpublish), the Tammi guy, Ikka Priha. We never had any contact of any sort with the Turbine people. If they had been making any attempt to use our newer stuff, we surely would have heard from one or more of them.
Cheers,
Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker-Velocity comparison page: http://freemarker.org/fmVsVel.html FreeMarker 2.3pre4 is out!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
