velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <jvan...@periapt.com>
Subject Re: Plans
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:51:56 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Tim Joyce wrote:

> 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).

That's why I'm asking. I'm most interested in finding out
how WM is used the majority of the time. Do you use it
with another servlet mechanism? Or do you just use the
templating facility. We're open to options, but one thing
I'll certainly be working on is the tight integration
of Velocity with Turbine. But that is simply one of
my priorities. You can contribute code for whatever
you like!

> >
> > 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?

Yes, you are wrong. The code bases will not be merged. They will be two
separate code bases. It will be one project, but separate code for now.
I have only been able to look at the WM code in the last few
days. I intend to move ahead with Velocity as originally intended.
This may end soon, and we may work together sooner then expected.

I'm not intimately familiar with WM, and I want to fully implement
the design the Velocity team has settled on. This will be a very
quick iteration to get a grip on the beast as a whole. This
will also give all of Velocity developers the time to look
over the WM code.

We have most of the directives (even one I believe you don't
that WM have requested #if/#elseif/.../#else), and I plan
to post the design of the parser and a caching system
tomorrow. I'm also hoping that tomorrow Bob (of iSpock)
and I will be able to plug WM's introspection mechanism
into Velocity. Bob has had experience with this as he
has done it with iSpock.

I will more then likely meet Justin in person when
he comes back to Toronto. We may be able to settle
some issues. But for now I'm going ahead as planned.

jvz.

-- 

Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@periapt.com


Mime
View raw message