Well, FM3 can be reduced to a minimum, core and servlet ( IMHO ), dropping those dependencies.
The different integrations can be managed outside of freemarker, ideally motivating new projects managed by new people. Just dreaming, but for example, think in an scala-freemarker , clojure-freemarker, o nashorn-freemarker integrations. Regards, 2017-01-12 11:50 GMT-03:00 Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu>: > The question here meant to be if we can *totally* get rid of those in > the subject in FM3. > > Otherwise, yes, there's a consensus regarding the modularity thing, > i.e., to have a quite minimal core (whether we call that > o.a.f:freemarker or o.a.f:freemarker-core, not decided yet) and then > additional modules like o.a.f:freemarker-servlet. > > > Thursday, January 12, 2017, 3:10:36 PM, Mauricio Nuñez wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with a minimal FM3 core and 3rd party dependencies/integrations > in > > extra modules. Maybe a secondary repository or project, like FM3-extras, > > separated from the main site. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mauricio > > > > > > 2017-01-12 10:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu>: > > > >> As far as I know these aren't used much anymore. So I suggest we drop > >> them from FM3 (which isn't compatible with FM2 anyway). They would be > >> moved to separate Maven modules (jar-s like freemarker-jython) > >> otherwise. (If it ever turns out that people miss them in FM3, we can > >> always add a such module later.) > >> > >> Any objections/thoughts? > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks, > >> Daniel Dekany > >> > >> > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > >
