freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <>
Subject Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues)
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:09:01 GMT
Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:11:37 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>     Got a chance to work on the task. I have come up with something
> here

Looks fine.

> I have the following questions. 
> 1. The pure css used by the online validator is pretty old . Do we
> have any idea to replace the same with the latest version of
> pure( or bootstrap.

You can update Pure if you want to, or use Bootstrap CSS... I don't
know either. If you have experience with them, I will trust your

> 2. How many such template can the user add. like can he keep on
> adding it or we are going to put any restrictions there.

To keep users from killing the server, let's say, the main template
plus at most 3 importable/includable templates.

> Kindly let me know any changes in the pen and also answer to the above.
> Pradeep.
> From: Daniel Dekany <>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:59:34 AM
> To: Daniel Dekany
> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) 
> Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:24:21 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> I should
> I meant "It should".
>> support adding arbitrary templates. As I imagine it, there
>> would be an "Add template" button, and when you press it, it adds an
>> extra text area, which has a template name input, an "auto import"
>> checkbox, and an "auto include" checkbox, and a "Remove template"
>> button over it.
> Another thing... we should add an "Incompatible improvements" dropdown
> after the existing ones, which preselects the value of
> Configuration.getVersion().
>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 7:24:19 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>   Cool..  I will start with adding the extra template name thing to
>>> the online template tester. (#import and #include) . I would need
>>> more pointers on the same. How have you visualised the same. 
>>> Meaning , How the users can import other templates, we will give
>>> provision to add other templates or we have some predefined
>>> templates loaded , so that they can import the same ?
>>> Pradeep.
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Daniel Dekany <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:02:38 PM
>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: Graduation issues
>>> Happy to see you back!
>>> There are things to do, of course.
>>> I haven't yet merged in your contribution with XML siblings (so it
>>> won't be in 2.3.25 - sorry about that, next time), and AFAIR there
>>> were some wrinkles to work on.
>>> I have done some of the planned improvements on
>>> (mostly to draw attention to the
>>> outputFormat setting of 2.3.24), but there are other things to do.
>>> Apart from what was discussed earlier, I think supporting adding extra
>>> templates with names would be handy, because then people can play
>>> around with #import and #include.
>>> And then of course, there's with
>>> even more things to do.
>>> Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 12:27:01 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>> Hi Daniel & team,
>>>>    Sorry that I was dormant for a long time after a very short tent
>>>> @ Freemaker. I am out of some critical issues and have some bandwidth from
now on.
>>>> Kindly let me know if there is anything I could help.
>>>> Pradeep.
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:48:55 AM
>>>> To: Sergio Fernández
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Subject: Graduation issues
>>>> I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least
>>>> I will tell what do I think about the state of the project.
>>>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me.
>>>> What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug
>>>> that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the
>>>> owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc.
>>>> But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things
>>>> would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's
>>>> backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is
>>>> actually 14 years old). But of course that's just slow death if a
>>>> project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to
>>>> tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to
>>>> maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be
>>>> done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch
>>>> long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance
>>>> for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache
>>>> projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of
>>>> project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want
>>>> to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and
>>>> then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines
>>>> isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers
>>>> around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't
>>>> hang around in the incubator forever. So, do you believe there's any
>>>> chance to graduate with the current developer base?
>>>> Monday, June 13, 2016, 8:15:11 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>> Besides the technical discussion for 2.3.25-incubating, after that release
>>>>> you may start to discuss a possible graduation. We have to discuss many
>>>>> aspects (specially growth of the community), but technically speaking
>>>>> podling is capable os casting releases.
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>  Daniel Dekany
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Daniel Dekany

 Daniel Dekany

View raw message