freemarker-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Taher Alkhateeb <>
Subject Re: Proposal for FREEMARKER-84: More flexible handlig of missing templates
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:36:37 GMT
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.

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?

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 of
>>> 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 the
>>>> > 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

View raw message