Saturday, June 14, 2003, 9:29:17 PM, Jonathan Revusky wrote: > Daniel Dekany wrote: >> 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. [snip]
I'm talking not about 1.x -> 2.x, but 2.x -> 2.x+1. For example, I have a static homepage generator tool. Now if I want users to utilize the developments of FM, and I release 0.8.10 with FM 2.3, then 0.8.10 will be non-BC with 0.8.9, because FM 2.3 is non-BC with 2.2. This is such simple. However, I have no better choice currently; even if the tool will use FM 2.2 forever, probably it is still more powerful than Velocity ever will be (especially if it keeps BC forever). Actually, the problem with both engines is the lack of planning ahead, that they are developed in an ad-hoc way. This causes that improvements often require non-BC changes, or else the engine becomes rather twisted as the addition of new features gradually change the approach of the template engine. -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
