freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Dekany <>
Subject Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2018 16:57:37 GMT
Saturday, February 17, 2018, 2:36:37 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:

> Ahh I see, I guess that's the layer of complexity Jacopo was pointing
> to (fall back mechanism). Every time I engage here I learn something
> :) In this case I stand neutral. it sounds a bit challenging but I
> have zero knowledge of the code base and perhaps the architecture
> allows for that.

It allows that. It's already possible to do with the public
Environment Java API. It's just that then you had to implement a
custom TemplateDirectiveModel and all... and it might not be so easy
to do (or to do correctly) for an average user.

Anyway, an important selling point of FreeMarker is that you generally
have to run less circles to make developers add this-and-that tool,
also to find the typically lacking documentation of in-house
directives, because lot of the stuff is there out-of-the-box and is
documented in the Manual. (Except that people enjoy using ancient
FreeMarker versions... like 2.3.19(!) and 2.3.23 are big favorites.)

> I find this over all intriguing and interesting, if you intend to work
> on this feature would you mind sharing the JIRA number so I can follow
> on the code changes?

It's in the thread Subject... :)

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Daniel Dekany <> wrote:
>> Saturday, February 17, 2018, 9:36:48 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
>>> Wrong link, sorry, correcting.
>> Just be sure it's clear, we also have an ignore_missing option (in the
>> released versions). But it's often not very useful if you can't do
>> some action in case the template is missing.
>> Jinja also allows you to specify a list of template names instead of
>> just one, and uses that as a fallback list. That's something I have
>> considered as well, and I believe it covers most use-cases for the
>> proposed feature. However, it falls into the same mistake as
>> ingnore_missing, as it focuses on a concrete use-case while missing
>> another (when you have to do something before the template if it
>> exists). I prefer less but more generic devices. With that could have
>> avoid adding ignore_missing as well.
>>> On Feb 17, 2018 11:34 AM, "Taher Alkhateeb" <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> For a point of comparison, the python jinja2 template engine (widely used)
>>>> has an "include" directive that has an attribute named "ignore missing"
>>>> [1]. I also remember seeing similar behavior in other engines.
>>>> So I guess perhaps from a usability point of view this seems to be a
>>>> desired feature by users. However, I don't know what the impact in terms
>>>> complexity would reflect in the code base.
>>>> On Feb 17, 2018 11:18 AM, "Jacopo Cappellato" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:04 AM, Daniel Dekany <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Some more opinions guys? Especially as we got one opinion against
>>>>> > feature.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Just to clarify my opinion: I am not against this feature; I simply don't
>>>>> consider it a must since there are some workaround to get a similar
>>>>> behavior. But if it will be implemented I will be happy too.
>>>>> Jacopo
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany

 Daniel Dekany

View raw message