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 11:01:28 GMT
> I second that. Though I am Turbine user (and developer) and I'm looking
forward
> to using these two combined, I think that Velocity shouldn't depend on
Turbine
> in any aspect. Servlet framewok and template processor are two different
entities.
> This is a problem with current WebMacro - it's trying to be both at the
same time.

yes, but to be fair, WM now works very well as a stand alone template
processor:

      WM wm = new WM();
      Context context = wm.getContext();
      context.put("test","test");
      Template template = wm.getTemplate("Test.wm");
      String expanded = (String) template.evaluate(context);

> > 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.
>
> AFAIK, code merge isn't going to happen anytime soon. The goal of Apache
WebMacro
> is to provide stable and fully functional distribution of WebMacro
available now,
> along with supporting it's current users and their particular needs.
> The goal of Velocity is to create fresh implementation of WebMacro's
design,
> that will be technically superiour to current WebMacro and in the future
may
> possibly replace it (see JServ & Tomcat).

yes, I have now understood this.  The JServ / Tomcat transition appeared to
work well, was there any resentment on the part of JServ developers?  Or did
they clearly see that their code needed a complete rewrite.

I appreciate you have had very little time to review the WM code, but apart
from the Parser, what technical deficiencies do you feel it has?

cheers

timj



Mime
View raw message