freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pradeep Murugesan <>
Subject Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues)
Date Mon, 01 Aug 2016 16:11:37 GMT
Hi Daniel,

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

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.

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.

Kindly let me know any changes in the pen and also answer to the above.


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

> 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
>>> 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 the
>>>> podling is capable os casting releases.
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>>  Daniel Dekany
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany

 Daniel Dekany

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message