velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Romianowski <peter.romianow...@coreg.de>
Subject Re: JavaCC open sourced on dev.java.net
Date Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:00:03 GMT
Hi James,

> Does someone have a list of these "missing" features for Velocity?  I know
> it is not checking our email for us yet, but perhaps not every application
> we use needs to do that.

But it could then ;) Just kidding.

> Velocity as it stands today seems well focused, stable and effective at what
> it does.
> 
> After working with Velocity over the last 2 years, deploying it in mission
> critical applications, I find it to be a proven technology with a
> first-class record of accomplishment.
> 
> One might take the point of view that the current development cycles for
> Velocity are an indicator of its maturity, rather then measure of its
> viability or future usefulness.
> 

Don't mix things up. It is *not* about "Desperately Missing Features(tm)" - it's
about "There Is *Nobody* Developing It(tm)". It happened every time someone
came up with the question about development that someone said "All features are
there" or "What you want is not MVC". That is not the point. Even if we think
of velocity as a product with all features needed for a template-engine there
is no bugfixing or feature-enhancement. And velocity has some bugs (macros create
a lot of problems with overloading or using them in #parse(d) templates) and
some things could be designed better (better exception reporting for instance).

So Velocity might be complete looking at the features (even though I doubt that
very much) but there MUST be a community developing it.

And at least I have a strange feeling using software that's no longer supported.
(support != usage questions).

 > As with all other issues, just my opinion.

dito.

Peter

> 
> 
> James Maes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lee Wenger [mailto:lwenger@tibco.com]
>>Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 10:06 AM
>>To: 'Velocity Users List'
>>Subject: RE: JavaCC open sourced on dev.java.net
>>
>>
>>I hate to say I'm sortof kinda of listening (to Jonathan that is).  I'm
>>just starting a project where I will be using the services of velocity
>>from inside of another application.  It will be significantly easier for
>>me to utilize Velocity as opposed to another OS project such as
>>freemarker due 100% to perceptions and politics - we've already had the
>>lengthy debate about servlet engines and have at long last agreed to use
>>Tomcat at least for needs internal to our application.  Therefore,
>>Velocity will be a much easier "sell".
>>
>>However, if there are no significant plans for future development on
>>Velocity, its developer base will slowly migrate away to other tools to
>>the point where it is no longer a viable option.  In the fast paced
>>world of web technologies this could easily be a period as short as 2-3
>>years.  While I don't expect assurances that velocity will be viable for
>>the mid-longer term (>5 years) I think it is reasonable that the
>>owners/developers provide some assurance (or more specifically since
>>this is an OS project - some type of statement of intent) that there is
>>some dedication to refining and enhancing this project.  I will as I
>>become more proficient at using the product become a contributor as well
>>but as a "new comer" need to rely on those that are already there and
>>are active.
>>
>>Can someone provide a degree of statement of the direction and intent of
>>Velocity as it stands now such that new users such as myself can make an
>>informed decision as to the viability and feasibility of utilizing
>>Velocity as the core of new project efforts.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Lee wenger
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Christoph.Reck@dlr.de [mailto:Christoph.Reck@dlr.de]
>>>Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:39 AM
>>>To: Velocity Users List
>>>Subject: Re: JavaCC open sourced on dev.java.net
>>>
>>>Jonathan, please stop your negative comments on velocity. This tone
>>>not help you gain users for FreeMarker. We cannot inhibit you from
>>>writing velocity users directly to win them over, but we urge you
>>>to stop this tone in this list.
>>>
>>>I do not intend to start another flame war. So period with this.
>>>
>>>Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>>>
>>>>Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm excited to report that the development site for Sun's JavaCC
>>>>>parser generator is now being served up via Velocity templates (by
>>
>>way
>>
>>>>>of CollabNet's SourceCast)!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Daniel,
>>>>
>>>>I don't begrudge you the self-congratulatory tone of the
>>
>>announcement. I
>>
>>>>know that it is very gratifying when other people use your work. On
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>other hand, one infers an undue level of complacency in your camp.
>>
>>If I
>>
>>>>were someone with a significant investment in Velocity, I would find
>>>>this kind of unsettling. The fact remains that no Velocity
>>
>>development
>>
>>>>to speak of has occurred for about a year. You, Daniel, are the last
>>
>>guy
>>
>>>>to have committed any code to the core project.  And that was still
>>
>>7
>>
>>>>months ago. But actually, I would say that, to all intents and
>>
>>purposes,
>>
>>>>Velocity develoment came to a standstill at least a year ago.
>>>
>>>Velocity is good as it is. It might profit from some of the late
>>>contributions or proposals, but this is anther theme not part of this
>>>thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, software technology moves fairly quickly. A year is a very long
>>>>time. For example, I can tell you that the competing project that is
>>>>largely my fault (;-)) FreeMarker, has improved dramatically over
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>last year or so. We are now in our 4th major release cycle of the
>>
>>last
>>
>>>>16 months, and each such cycle has added major new features. Come to
>>>>think of it, I wonder: what was the last significant feature added
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>Velocity and when was it added?
>>>>
>>>>Now, certainly, Velocity, due to being a jakarta project, has very
>>
>>good
>>
>>>>placement, and gets a lot of usage out there. It certainly has a
>>
>>huge
>>
>>>>marketing/placement advantage over FreeMarker. It is likely that
>>>>Velocity will continue to have more users than FreeMarker despite
>>>>FreeMarker's cutting edge features.
>>>>
>>>>But then look at JSP. The situation there is night and day. JSP has
>>
>>a
>>
>>>>huge placement advantage over Velocity and JSP has been improving a
>>
>>lot
>>
>>>>too. There is JSTL and Java server faces, and now a whole bunch of
>>
>>3rd
>>
>>>>party JSP taglibs are making their appearance -- things like CeWolf
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>SiteMesh and so on --  functionality that JSP users can draw on and
>>
>>are
>>
>>>>not available if you use Velocity. (They are available from
>>
>>FreeMarker
>>
>>>>since we added taglib support, BTW.)
>>>>
>>>>So, it does not make sense to me that you guys are sitting on your
>>>>laurels like this. And certainly, it seems to me quite subjectively
>>
>>that
>>
>>>>traffic on this list (I mean velocity-user) is not what it used to
>>
>>be...
>>
>>>Your tone helps to chase people away (and not twards your tool!).
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, while I don't begrudge you the self-congratulatory notes when
>>
>>you
>>
>>>>see a high-profile website using Velocity, I actually think that
>>
>>some
>>
>>>>apocalyptic gloom-and-doom sorts of posts would be more appropriate
>>>>objectively. At least if they served to rally the troops.
>>
>>Complacency
>>
>>>>does not seem to be indicated. Not in this sector -- nosirrr.
>>>>
>>>>Or really, cutting to the chase: Do you guys have any plans for
>>
>>future
>>
>>>>development of Velocity?
>>>
>>>Yes. But were assesing *real* user needs that are a true win for the
>>>velocity templating engine. Some are in the queue.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://javacc.dev.java.net/
>>>>>
>>>>>The happy irony is that Velocity is built on top of a
>>
>>JavaCC-generated
>>
>>>>>parser.  Gotta love that synergy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, FreeMarker also uses a JavaCC-generated parser. I was quite
>>>>interested to learn that JavaCC is now open-sourced. I learned of
>>
>>this
>>
>>>>from your post. Thank you for that.
>>>
>>>This was the reason for this post, and not your misuse.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Jonathan Revusky
>>>
>>>--
>>>:) Christoph Reck
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 

-- 
Peter Romianowski

coreg
Weidenweg 60
10247 Berlin

Telefon: 030 / 41 72 42 31
Fax:     030 / 41 72 42 39

Email:   mailto:romianowski@coreg.de
Website: http://www.coreg.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: velocity-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: velocity-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message