velocity-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Will Glass-Husain" <wgl...@forio.com>
Subject Re: Other languages?
Date Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:03:46 GMT
Nicely said, Nathan.

Moving beyond "Component" vs. "Framework", to me this is three issues...

(1) If Jakarta moves towards a goal of focusing on Java "component" type 
projects, would Velocity fit in?  In other words, would we fit the new 
"brand" as Henri envisions it?  To me this matters because many users will 
come to Jakarta looking for neato Java libraries and discover Velocity. 
(this is how I found it).

(2) On the opposing side, does the Velocity project have the interest or 
capacity to be a top level project (velocity.apache.org)?

(3) Will there be heightened synergy among the Jakarta developers as Henri 
(optimistically?) envisions with the flattened structure?  (more of a 
general issue - not directly a Velocity issue).

My take... Even if Velocity is a "significant component" or is a "templating 
framework" I think it would still fit within that brand.  And until we get 
more committers (150% increase in the last year!) item #2 is a big worry.

Cheers!
WILL



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nathan Bubna" <nbubna@gmail.com>
To: "Velocity Developers List" <velocity-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Other languages?


ergh.  a framework is something that sets out to define the structure
of your application (i'll avoid the question of what that means for
now :), while components are building materials.  however, what you
use to build a structure will always greatly influence the shape of
it.  so the line between "framework" and "component" has been, is, and
always will be somewhat fuzzy.  the only components that don't
*appear* to influence the structural definition are the completely
ubiquitous ones.

i tip heavily toward the belief that Velocity is a component, and even
that VelocityTools largely is as well.  both are pretty much the "V"
of MVC and lack a definite "C".  even the VelocityViewServlet and
VelocityLayoutServlets are both view-centric.  likewise, the
VelocityStruts stuff is just for integration with a Struts controller;
it is not a framework alone.  (and it will likely disappear if/when
WebWork becomes Struts Action 2.0.)

granted Velocity is a very significant component and can be used to
develop an application without a framework.  but even then, it isn't
defining the controller piece. that is left to the app developer (or
just left out).

anyway, i guess what i'm saying is that i think Velocity and
VelocityTools do a pretty good job of limiting themselves to the view
layer, and as long as that is true, they should be considered
components for use with/in full frameworks and not frameworks
themselves.

and practically speaking, Will is right.  we probably need more highly
involved committers to adequately sustain a TLP at this point.

as for NVelocity, i don't see a compelling argument for how bringing
the two projects side-by-side would aid either one.  specifically, i
agree with Will.  if there's no demand for this and committment to see
it succeed, then it could too easily become dead weight and hurt both
projects.

On 1/7/06, Will Glass-Husain <wglass@forio.com> wrote:
> Hi Henri,
>
> Thanks for the note.  Just to fill everyone else in, Henri (chair of
> Jakarta) has floated a proposal to redefine Jakarta.  There's some
> discussion of this on the general@jakarta.apache.org mailing lists.   In a
> nutshell, the essence is that Jakarta morphs into a flatter "commons" type
> community offering libraries of different Java components.  To accomplish
> this, current "component" type subprojects stay as they are (like ORO),
> active initiatives of the current commons (like Commons Collections) move 
> up
> to become Jakarta subprojects, and "framework" type projects (like Turbine
> or Tapestry) moving and become their own top level projects, reporting
> directly to the Apache Board.  The goal would be to build more of a
> community among the various Jakarta projects, simplify administration,
> clarify the Jakarta brand.  (How's that for a fifty-cent summary, Henri?)
>
> This is only proposed.  (it's worth noting that some Framework type 
> efforts
> like Turbine have not bought into this concept yet).  If you've specific
> comments on this, I suggest taking them to the general list.
>
> But for us, the key question would be "Is Velocity a Component or a
> Framework?"  I've made the case that we are a component (and by 
> implication,
> not interested in the visibility being a TLP would provide).  It's pretty
> clear to me that Velocity is used by dozens of open source projects 
> (Apache
> and non) and numerous commercial efforts.  See the Powered By list for
> details.
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-velocity/PoweredByVelocity
>
> Henri's been sympathetic but notes we have some framework type pieces 
> (e.g.
> Velocity-Tools), and that we could have sub projects of our own (like
> NVelocity, not that such as been discussed).  I'll respond to that in a
> separate email.
>
> Please feel free to chip in.
>
> Cheers, WILL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
> To: "Velocity Developers List" <velocity-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Other languages?
>
>
> That was it. Someone (possibly you Will) had mentioned it to me.
>
> I mentioned the idea of Velocity going TLP to Henning and Will at
> ApacheCon last month. I'm trying to focus Jakarta's role and I think
> the various frameworks can all goto TLP, leaving the smaller
> components behind. Velocity sits halfway between framework and
> component I think, so I've not been pushing too hard for its moving.
>
> However, one advantage of going TLP would be that NVelocity could be
> invited to join in.
>
> Hen
>
> On 12/16/05, Will Glass-Husain <wglass@forio.com> wrote:
> > Yes.  Not part of the Velocity project or the Apache foundation.
> >
> > NVelocity is an explicit port to .NET.  I assume that's what you are
> > looking
> > for.
> >
> > http://nvelocity.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > If you're interested in the solution space, similar technologies are
> > Smarty
> > (PHP) and Template Toolkit (Perl) among others.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > WILL
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
> > To: "Velocity Developers List" <velocity-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:42 PM
> > Subject: Other languages?
> >
> >
> > Dumb question, but are there other language implementations of Velocity?
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message