Friday, May 19, 2017, 8:59:54 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote: >> Thursday, May 18, 2017, 10:01:23 PM, Michael Brohl wrote: >> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> I think these non-Jiraed issues should be created in Jira. Maybe they >>> can attract contributors? >> >> Currently http://freemarker.org/contribute.html is were tasks for >> contributors are listed. But those are FM2 issues. Current FM3 issues >> are mostly too involved for casual contributors, as it's mostly FM2 >> cleanup and refactoring... hence no issues. But the goal is to get to >> a point where more "accessible" issues can be produced. (A more >> accessible code base is one of the main goals of FM3 after all.) >> >> Speaking of which, soon there will be one. Anyone is interested in FM3 >> Spring integration? The goal is that FM3's builder-based configuration >> can be used seamlessly for creating the Spring beans. So certainly a >> freemarker-spring module need to be added, which extends some classes >> to implement FactoryBean interface and such. Also some configuration >> defaults, like the TemplateLoader need to be different for sure, and >> we need a TemplateLoader that uses Spring's Resource API. (I will >> create an issue for it after I have polished the configuration API a >> bit more.) > > Yes, I am interested in FM3 spring integration. > One question is, are we going to replace spring framework's default > freemarker view support [1] by freemarker-spring in FM3?
That would be the idea. And that will be the only possibility at the beginning, as they only have FM2 support (and I guess contributing to ASF/FM makes more sense than contributing to them). > Anyway, I'll happily help with this as soon as you create an issue. Great! That will happen in a few days. > Regards, > > Woonsan > > [1] > https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/html/view.html#view-velocity-contextconfig > >> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Michael Brohl >>> ecomify GmbH >>> www.ecomify.de >>> >>> >>> Am 17.05.17 um 14:29 schrieb Daniel Dekany: >>>> Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 2:26:29 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah I closed it because it was a proposal for a PoC which you pretty much >>>>> got done while I slacked :) Should I re-open? If yes then perhaps it >>>>> should >>>>> be renamed by removing the "PoC" part? >>>> No, then it was right to close it after all. You can create an issue >>>> for resolving the TODO-s and polishing the stuff it you think, though >>>> honestly FM3 has tons and tons of non-Jiraed things to do... What >>>> really counts if someone is interested in actually working on them. >>>> (I'm not saying this to point at you or anyone. It's unpaid work etc., >>>> and if the project can't attract contributors, it's the fault of the >>>> project and of its key persons, like me. The aspect that concerns me >>>> is that if I do all the technical stuff, even if I was some kind of >>>> superhuman one man army (and BTW I'm not) who can grind through >>>> everything in time regardless, that will be a serious problem when it >>>> comes to Apache incubation voting...) >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I saw the Jira issue for migrating to Gradle was closed, but to be >>>>>> clear it's far from done. Like, a major TODO is building the release >>>>>> artifacts; the root project should do that (or should that be yet >>>>>> another sub-project instead?). >>>>>> >>>>>> The second most important deficiency is producing all the 3 Maven >>>>>> artifacts for each published module (the usual artifact plus src and >>>>>> javadoc). Currently we only produce one artifact per module, and it's >>>>>> not even signed. >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, I have factored out Manual generation into freemarker-manual >>>>>> (non-published module). There's also a TODO there as its build doesn't >>>>>> produce anything yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> > -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany