freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Siegfried Goeschl <>
Subject Re: Request For Comment - freemarker-cli
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:52:56 GMT
HI folks,

I will migrate the Groovy script to Java-only code on GitHub in the next few weeks - I guess
my colleagues will be happy to have JDK-only dependency :-)

When I’m finished you can still decide if you would like to setup links to (more or less)
useful contributions or consider a code contribution :-)

Thanks in advance,

Siegfried Goeschl

> On 8 Mar 2017, at 08:00, Daniel Dekany <> wrote:
> Note that freemarker-online tries to avoid taking any serious
> workload. Surely it can be easily DoS-ed to death, but it tries not to
> be useful for doing actual work (like you can't upload data file to
> transform), so at least well behaving users won't kill it. It's for
> trying the template language.
> Something that users can download and run themselves is an entirely
> different story of course. I'm not sure if there would be a
> significant overlap with freemarker-online though, given how little
> freemarker-online can do, by design. Well, unless the standalone tool
> also have a browser interface (as opposed to SWT or Swing), they may
> want to share something like a better FTL editor for example. Also, a
> GUI and a CLI tool can surely share a lot of course.
> Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 7:03:13 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>> Hi Siegfried,
>> Thanks for sharing your work!
>> In my view, the main question is around how we can position the tool
>> like what you implemented. In other words, would it belong to report
>> generation area, simple data conversion tool area, or generic
>> freemarker execution tool (or CLI) area?
>> In my gut feeling, it could be best if it is possible to merge the
>> freemarker-online-tester tool and your work together, and position it
>> as a more generic freemarker CLI (and GUI support later?) tool. So
>> people may download the tool to execute/test ftl sources locally with
>> data, or we can deploy the tool as online service
>> (freemarker-online-tester). Perhaps in the future, the CLI tool may
>> support GUI, CLI, and web-online modes for users' convenience.
>> So, if this vision is okay to the community, it might be worth
>> combining both efforts into one as a new product (and as a subproject
>> of freemarker).
>> What do others think?
>> Regards,
>> Woonsan
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Siegfried Goeschl
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>> as far as I’m concerned
>>> * At the end of the day the committers & PMC decide what become part of the
>>>        * The same is said for adding links to external projects :-)
>>> * The users do care about solving a problem a hand
>>>        * They don’t care a millisecond if it is part of an ecosystem or not
as long as they can find the tools they need and get their stuff done
>>>        * An alive-and-kicking ecosystem will result in new users of FreeMarker
>>>        * They might not even care if there is Velocity or FreeMarker under the
hood :-)
>>> * I’m aware of <>
and I think this is a brilliant idea
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>>> On 6 Mar 2017, at 16:24, Daniel Dekany <> wrote:
>>>> Regarding if it's an useful contribution to the project. Currently,
>>>> the Apache FreeMarker (incubating) project is only the engine itself.
>>>> So unless we widen the scope of the project, while it certainly helps
>>>> with the popularity/usefulness of the FreeMarker project, it's not a
>>>> direct contribution to it.
>>>> Some may point out that the project already have multiple "products",
>>>> all in its own repository (but still under the umbrella of the Apache
>>>> FreeMarker project):
>>>> - freemarker: The engine itself, freemarker.jar. This is the only thing
>>>> has releases. The others are just dependencies.
>>>> - freemarker-docgen: Transforms XDocBook to HTML. The reason it's here
>>>> is that both our homepage and the Manual are generated with this.
>>>> - freemarker-site: The content of the homepage
>>>> - Recently we started working on bringing over the small project
>>>> behind So it's just yet
>>>> another 3rd party tool, so why bring it in as a "product" of the
>>>> project? The intent is that it will be part of our home page (so
>>>> it's not a product with actual releases). It's a "tool" for trying
>>>> out the engine itself, it has no other intended utility, so it
>>>> fits in. Though the real incentive was that we saw the service being
>>>> endangered (becoming outdated, etc.), and we want a service where
>>>> the users can try the engine quickly. Also we have contributed to it
>>>> substantially... we don't want those work hours to be lost.
>>>> So these are all stuff used for publish/documenting the engine itself.
>>>> But I'm not saying that it's totally impossible to bring in standalone
>>>> tools as additional "products". I'm just not sure if we want get into
>>>> that business. Because, what policy we want to follow? Why some
>>>> project remains on GitHub, and why some become products of the
>>>> FreeMarker project? Is that good for the ecosystem?
>>>> (BTW, there's FMPP for example, another command line tool for
>>>> FreeMarker. It has always remained an independent GitHub project. It
>>>> was actually written by me (when I was still quite junior so I'm not
>>>> very proud of it... but it works), so surely I could use my influence,
>>>> but I just think it fits in. However, it's linked from the
>>>> side menu, for ages... can be seen as an abuse of
>>>> power. (-: Heck, I have never though of that... I will remove that
>>>> link. But, note that freemarker-online is also linked there, simply
>>>> because it's quite useful for many users. So for widely useful and
>>>> proven stuff that's a possibility.)
>>>> Anyway, anybody has thoughts about this?
>>>> Monday, March 6, 2017, 12:07:26 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>> I'm playing around with Template Engines for a couple of years and
>>>>> over Christmas I moved some of my code from Velocity for FreeMarker.
>>>>> One piece of code which could be useful to the public is
>>>>> <>
>>>>> * Don’t now if I already re-invented the wheel :-)
>>>>> * Please note that this is my first contact with Apache FreeMarker
>>>>> * I would like to ditch Groovy and migrate to a stand-alone Java application
>>>>> * It is already under ASL-2.0
>>>>> So the question is - could this be a useful contribution to the
>>>>> project?! As far as I know open source is not oneway only :-)
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Siegfried Goeschl
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany

View raw message