Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
[...]
>> No, we didn't. You're right. All of the active developers that I know
>> use Velocity in their projects and at least I don't see much sense in
>> supporting something that is not in demand by our users (on
>> turbine-user)
>Well, frankly, I don't see much sense in putting a note on top of the
>FreeMarker bridge classes that says "Deprecated. Use Velocity instead."
>and then saying stuff like "FM support was removed because nobody was
>using it" or (stated in an innocent tone) "There does not seem to be any
>end-user demand for this" and neglecting to mention that you
>specifically told people not to use it!
Look,
you seem to try very hard to turn words in my mouth. Fact is, that this
was (and is) the timeline:
1) Turbine contained some FM view code from the 1.x and 2.0 code base
This was old, outdated, used an old version of FM.
2) No one actively developed it.
3) No one used it in conjunction with Turbine. Not on 2.1. Not on 2.2-dev
4) It got deprecated post-2.1. We told people on the 2.2 time line
not to use the FM code but to use Velocity.
5) It got dropped post-2.2. This doesn't mean that this code might not
be revived if there is demand and/or a Turbine developer steps up and
works on it.
End of story. No conspiracy here. Nevertheless I personally feeling
that my opinion is starting to move from "being totally indifferent to
FM, because I don't use it" towards "Uh, those guys have a serious ego
problem".
>Henning, you have heard of the "beg-the-question" fallacy, haven't you?
>Aren't you engaging in a version of that?
>> and not used by the developers (on turbine-dev).
>Well, given that there is significant overlap between the core Turbine
>team and the original Velocity developers, it does not surprise me that
>they favor Velocity.
You may look up who did commits to the Turbine code in the last six
months. I'd guess that you won't see any "original Velocity
developers".
>> Patches are (as always) welcome. If you have a working FreeMarker
>> templating solution (which shouldn't be too hard to do) for Turbine,
>> we will put it into the CVS tree in a second. But please don't think
>> that any of the active developers will spend time that is better spent
>> on things that we _know_ that they're used than on supporting "yet
>> another templating solution".
><sigh>
>I don't know what this thing about "yet another" templating solution is.
>As far as I can tell, the only templating solution you support currently
>is Velocity. Wouldn't anyone reading this "yet another" infer that you
>were already supporting several of them?
We have one that seems to work for everybody that uses Turbine. That's
seems to be enough. As you yourself said: If it's so simple to support
FM in Turbine, why hasn't anyone posted a patch which allows FM 2.x as
View of Turbine? Answer: There seems to be no demand.
>But, in general, I read your messages and I have a hard time processing
>what you're saying. There seems to be unresolved subtext. You have
>expressed an interest in having a template-engine-neutral architecture.
>That would imply that you consider it desirable to support more than one
>template engine. If you do want to support another template engine
>besides Velocity, and that other template engine is not FM, which one(s)
>were you looking at?
Everyone that we get patches for. But we don't run around looking for code
to bolt onto Turbine unless there is demand.
>> Asides from being able to juggle with floats on a template, having a
>> few more control statements (such as being able to break out of a
>> loop) and name space support (which is nice and I'd really like to
>> have that in a view), I don't see too many differences between
>> Velocity and FM.
>Well, I guess you didn't look very carefully. I gave you a list (on your
>request) that included significantly more checkpoints than what you have
>stated above.
I saw your list after this post. It still holds true to me. Anything
else you support is either eye-candy or simply not part of the View
scope. Yes, these are nice features and maybe my position is "too
purist". But then again, I personally don't care much (I have other
work to do) and if someone needs FM support, he should donate a patch.
>In any case, it goes beyond a list of checkpoints like that. The fact
>remains that, at this stage of history, FreeMarker is actively developed
>and maintained and Velocity is not.
So what? When the available tools fulfil the needs of 100% of the
users, there is no point in supporting another tool which will not be
used.
[... pointless rant read and deleted ...]
I agree to disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that at some point a
developer will want to have FM support in Turbine or Turbine support
in FM and then send in a patch for make it possible.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
