velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Joyce" <...@hoop.co.uk>
Subject Re: Plans
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:28:38 GMT
Jason,

I've just joined from the webmacro list :)

> A general question:
>
> Should we try and make Velocity a completely stand-alone replacement
> to WM, or can we say that we are planning a Turbine/Velocity
> partnership to be a replacement for WM. I prefer the partnership,
> Turbine has a huge development base compared to WM and it would
> be great to leverage that. I don't see why we can't pitch a
> Turbine/Velocity pair as a replacement/upgrade path for WM.

many people who use WM have rejected Turbine (for any number of reasons).  I
urge you to ensure that Velocity stands alone.  For me, there is a clear
seperation between a Template Expander (Velocity / WM) and a Servlet
Framework (Turbine).

>
> Jon has suggested that we strive to make a comprehensive
> API that can be adhered to so we can have a guideline
> as to how to proceed to give WM users the compatibility
> they need. Both the Velocity developers and the WM developers
> should agree on how things will work so we can work
> in the direction of an eventual merger of code. So when
> that day comes it will be easy (easier). I guess this
> would consist of a testbed template file to check the
> syntax, then we should assess what are the exposed portions
> of WM currently in heavy use and tackle those first. Like
> dynamic directives for example.

I was under the impression that following yesterday's meeting, we would all
be working on the same codebase from very soon (next week?).  This would be
the WebMacro codebase, perhaps including the new Velocity parser.  The
priority is to get Apache Webmacro 1.0 released ASAP, this would make a lot
of people very happy.

Am I wrong?

timj



Mime
View raw message