velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Plans
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2000 08:54:08 GMT

Before I go to bed I just wanted to get a few thoughts out:

I've added a TODO in the base of the module. I've listed
things that I know don't. If you know of things that need
to be done list them in there.

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.


In terms of all the ContextTools like CGITool, FormTool we
could make these light wrappers around existing Turbine
functionality? I imagine a good portion of these tools have
analogs in Turbine. We should use them.

Dynamic Directives:

Bob has some ideas. I think I've found a way to support
them in the parser. So hopefully this won't be as big a
PITA as I thought it would be. I personally don't like
them but they have to be supported if it's a common
strategy for WM users.

WM Directives:

There are a few that haven't been implemented. I will
try to get them all into the testbed. If there are any
missing feel free to add them to the test.wm file in
the examples directory. If you have something that doesn't
work place it near the top of a file with a comment and
I'll try to fix the parser.

JavaCC People:

If there are any JavaCC people out there who would like
to get involved that would be great! I could really
use some input on making the grammar for flexible,
easier to maintain, and any general optimization
tips would be great!

API Initiative:

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'm just trying to get the ball rolling, any and all suggestions
would be greatly appreciated.




Jason van Zyl

View raw message