velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafal Krzewski <Rafal.Krzew...@e-point.pl>
Subject Re: Plans
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:21:51 GMT
Tim Joyce wrote:

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

True. I also use it for rendering non html templates, only wrapped inside
TurbineWebMacroService. You can use Turbine (db pooling, loging...)
outside servlet context easily.

> > 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 don't know wheter there was resentment or not. But I know that many (most)
JServ developer joined Tomcat team eventually.

> 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?

I don't have any particular complaints. WM works for me. Until recently there
was licensing issue, that is solved now. We'll continue using WebMacro until
Velocity will is stable, and has something to offer that WM has not.

Still, I believe that codebase rewrite will bring benefits. The most obvious
is enhanced performance, but there may be others that we can't preceive.

Rafal

Mime
View raw message