velocity-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Koberg <>
Subject Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Date Fri, 11 May 2007 15:36:24 GMT
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 16:43 +0200, Daniel Dekany wrote: 
> Friday, May 11, 2007, 2:51:36 PM, Townson, Chris wrote:

> > 2. (And this is the main reason) Because Velocity explicitly does
> > not attempt to be a solution which bundles everything and the
> > kitchen sink. The clear delineation of responsibility (basically,
> > taking a context+template and rendering) combined with clear
> > extension points and an elegant syntax made it ideal for our
> > purposes.
> Based on what I understand from your system, you need a template
> language only for some very trivial templating tasks, and then it
> really doesn't mater which template engine you are using, so I won't
> start debating if you have to face more complexity or less points of
> extension with FreeMarker. Well, I think you wouldn't, but whatever.

I do something similar to Chris. I use XSL to create the 'runtime'
template page/code and currently can switch between velocity and JSP
since it is so simple. Haven't tried FreeMarker.

> However, I don't understand the "elegant syntax" part. I would think
> that that:
>   #component("MyComponent", {"id":$})
> is rather less elegant than more elegant than:
>   <@component "MyComponent", />

Are all/most of the FreeMarker examples in this kind of syntax rather
than your relatively new XML syntax. It would be hard for the interface
type devs to see these in your docs and mentally switch to the XML
syntax, I think. Since I use XSL/XML, it is difficult to transform out
to a non well-formed result.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message