>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:38:20 +0200, >>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonathan> my perception is that FM support was removed from Turbine for
Jonathan> entirely murky, non-technical reasons.
Hmm. My reading of the discussion (as an innocent bystander) has been that FM support was removed from Turbine because it was unmaintained, and that it was unmaintained because nobody was using it (at least, nobody interested enough to maintain it).
Jonathan> is it really very likely that I am going to invest any of my Jonathan> own energy into helping you put the FM support back in there?
It appears not.
Jonathan> Obviously, my position is: "You guys removed it, you guys put
Jonathan> it back."
Jonathan, you appear to be *demanding* that the Turbine developers
reinstate FM support,
I have to correct the record on this, Mike. The above is utterly false.
Look back at the discussion. It was Henning who brought up the topic of re-introducing FM support in Turbine. I have *never* actively lobbied for this. I do not know where you get this bit about my "demanding that Turbine developers reinstate FM support." Feel free to provide any quote that supports this.
Now, as the discussion developed, I suggested that it would be a good idea (from their POV) since Velocity is no longer actively developed or maintained, and thus, only having Velocity as a template solution would give many potential users pause. But I am not involved with Turbine at all, and I am pretty much completely indifferent.
Look at it cold-bloodedly and objectively: we have fairly little to gain and they have quite a bit to gain. Nonetheless, Henning simply assumed that we (the FM camp) were the ones who were supposed to do the work. I simply pointed out that, when support was removed for what seem like arbitrary, non-technical reasons, to expect us to make the effort to put it back in is really a bit delusional.
but you're unwilling to help! I don't think you're going to get very far with that kind of attitude. Can you understand why?
Mike, the above is based on misrepresentation. We are not well enough acquainted for me to judge (yet) whether it is deliberate. The record clearly shows that I have *never* lobbied for FM to be re-introduced in Turbine.
My position was as follows: "If you want it there, put it in yourself."
Now, that said, in general, I and other FM developers are helpful with framework authors who want to leverage FreeMarker. For example, fairly recently, I actively helped Anthony Eden put FM support in JPublish, writing a first implementation myself. However, there was no prior history of JPublish supporting FM and then the support being removed for what seemed like non-technical, political reasons.
People generally invest time and effort to open-source tools because they actively use them; why would anyone invest time in supporting a framework that they didn't use?!
Well, Henning has stated various times that there is no great interest in having FM support (which I was never lobbying for in the first place) because everybody was so happy with Velocity. Well, I am at a loss as to understand why he so much wants to re-architect Turbine to support a template-engine-neutral layer. It seems a tad contradictory. <shrug>
In any case, Mike, I don't know what dialogue you are commenting on. It does not seem to be the dialogue that I have been taking part in.
Henning specifically asked me what features FM had above and beyond Velocity. He speculated out loud that it might be of interest to re-introduce FM support.
In response, I provided an extensive list of features that FM has that Vel lacks. I also pointed out that FM is actively developed and maintained while Vel is not.
You pose the question of "why would anyone invest time in supporting...." The above was my answer to that very question. So, it is beyond me why you pose the question again when I have already answered it. Quite straightforwardly and in perfectly good faith.
Also, this cuts both ways. Why should I invest any time in supporting a framework (Turbine) that I don't use? That was what Henning was proposing.
Anyway, Mike, I think you should really pay more attention to what is going on in a discussion before you jump in with your $.02.
Thanks,
Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker-Velocity comparison page, http://freemarker.org/fmVsVel.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
