Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Francois Beauregard wrote: A few developers here have used freemarker a little while ago and loved it. It seems to be a very good alternative to velocity. Since it worked for WebWork and after some little discensions the community seems be very well and alive, I would like to throw the suggestion the freemarker joins OpenSymphony. If the suggestion makes sense, an evaluation of the ptoential must be done by both party. Also, goals and directions for the project should be established first. I think this is the part that was missing when the WebWork joined OpenSymphony. Well, I remember some not so long ago the FreeMarker main developer went to the Velocity lists and ranted like crazy. It was a very disappointing read and he just wouldn't give up. I'm sure FreeMarker is ok technically, but I'd prefer to keep stuff like that out of here. So, no, I don't think FreeMarker should join OS. IMHO. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senselogic Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
On the contrary, that makes it perfect for OS! ;) Quoting Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Francois Beauregard wrote: A few developers here have used freemarker a little while ago and loved it. It seems to be a very good alternative to velocity. Since it worked for WebWork and after some little discensions the community seems be very well and alive, I would like to throw the suggestion the freemarker joins OpenSymphony. If the suggestion makes sense, an evaluation of the ptoential must be done by both party. Also, goals and directions for the project should be established first. I think this is the part that was missing when the WebWork joined OpenSymphony. Well, I remember some not so long ago the FreeMarker main developer went to the Velocity lists and ranted like crazy. It was a very disappointing read and he just wouldn't give up. I'm sure FreeMarker is ok technically, but I'd prefer to keep stuff like that out of here. So, no, I don't think FreeMarker should join OS. IMHO. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senselogic Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Francois Beauregard wrote: I was not aware of that fact. You are right. OpenSymphony seem to have got lately to a point where there is a good exchange of ideas and the community moves forward. This must stay the way it is right now. Do you remeber the reasons for the ranting? Yes, his belief that FreeMarker was the ultimate solution and that he was entitled to telling everyone of this regardless of everyone on the list begging for the opposite. It was (to me) quite disgusting. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senselogic Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Just wanted to emphasize the fact that supporting Freemarker as a view technology in WebWork and integrating Freemarker as an OpenSymphony project are two really separate issues. François -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rickard Öberg Sent: January 28, 2003 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags Francois Beauregard wrote: I was not aware of that fact. You are right. OpenSymphony seem to have got lately to a point where there is a good exchange of ideas and the community moves forward. This must stay the way it is right now. Do you remeber the reasons for the ranting? Yes, his belief that FreeMarker was the ultimate solution and that he was entitled to telling everyone of this regardless of everyone on the list begging for the opposite. It was (to me) quite disgusting. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senselogic Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Francois Beauregard wrote: Just wanted to emphasize the fact that supporting Freemarker as a view technology in WebWork and integrating Freemarker as an OpenSymphony project are two really separate issues. Oh absolutely. If someone wants to integrate FreeMaker go right ahead. I have no problem with that. /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senselogic Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
RE: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Just off the top of my head... Doesn't FreeMarker have a macro language similar to Velocity? I believe you could write custom functions to access the ValueStack. I was actually thinking about doing the FreeMarker integration just last week. Once I get some spare time I might look into this. Regards, Kirk Rasmussen Lucasfilm Ltd. -Original Message- From: James Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags The one thing that may prevent FreeMarker from being drop-in replacement for the WebWork JSP is the expression language supported by the WebWork taglibs. It also affects JSTL integration and Velocity integration. It concerns the hierarchical nature of the ValueStack. Most of these third-party view technologies don't understand the concept of '../name'. We use WebWork/Velocity on a huge project and have never had any need for this syntax, but some WebWork developers (I guess) use the hierarchical ValueStack quite often. Since you own the FreeMarker syntax and can modify it, perhaps you may want to include such constructs. On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: Actually if I understand it right, the integration is quite trivial. We have a Model2-compliant view servlet bundled into the core distribution. It lets templates access request, session, and servlet context attributes. It also lets templates use any JSP taglib present in the webapp. Therefore it is pretty much a drop-in replacement for JSP as far as WebWork is concerned. Is there anything else codewise that should be done for integration? (My feeling is that there isn't, but please correct me if there are some gotchas). --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
- Original Message - From: James Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags The one thing that may prevent FreeMarker from being drop-in replacement for the WebWork JSP is the expression language supported by the WebWork taglibs. If the WebWork tag expects these expressions to be passed to it as plain string attributes, then it's no problem. I know JSP 2.0 will have container-evaluated expressions, but for now we support the JSP 1.2 spec so we're just calling property setters for tag attributes. It also affects JSTL integration and Velocity integration. It concerns the hierarchical nature of the ValueStack. Most of these third-party view technologies don't understand the concept of '../name'. Depends on where. FM's own include and import directives do understand .. when resolving the template name to include. But maybe I'm talking nonsense - I'll take a closer look at the expression language and WW stacks to see if something rings an alert in my head. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. We use WebWork/Velocity on a huge project and have never had any need for this syntax, but some WebWork developers (I guess) use the hierarchical ValueStack quite often. Since you own the FreeMarker syntax and can modify it, perhaps you may want to include such constructs. I'll take a closer look at it. Cheers, Attila. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
- Original Message - From: Kirk Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:59 PM Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags Just off the top of my head... Doesn't FreeMarker have a macro language similar to Velocity? I believe you could write custom functions to access the ValueStack. Undoubtedly. Alternatively, since (that's why I brought up the issue originally) FreeMarker can now host JSP custom tag libraries, the existing taglibs that manipulate the value stack can be used without modifications. Altough it might be that a WW-specialized FM-data models could be created for performance reasons... I was actually thinking about doing the FreeMarker integration just last week. Once I get some spare time I might look into this. That'd be way cool. Cheers, Attila. Regards, Kirk Rasmussen Lucasfilm Ltd. You use WW and/or FM at Lucasfilm? Wow. --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags
Hello, Attila Szegedi wrote: - Original Message - From: Rickard Öberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Freemarker WAS Using SiteMesh for the UI tags snip/ Actually if I understand it right, the integration is quite trivial. We have a Model2-compliant view servlet bundled into the core distribution. It lets templates access request, session, and servlet context attributes. It also lets templates use any JSP taglib present in the webapp. Therefore it is pretty much a drop-in replacement for JSP as far as WebWork is concerned. Is there anything else codewise that should be done for integration? (My feeling is that there isn't, but please correct me if there are some gotchas). Although you could call the WW JSP tags, in many cases this won't make sense. For instance, you will want to use the FM if tag, not the ww:if tag. Velocity doesn't support the WW expression language. FM may not need to support it (much) either. IF FM has something like Velocity's context chaining, you could transparently support finding objects on the ValueStack. See WebWorkVelocityServlet. For more specific access to the ValueStack, it should be put into the context so one can call specific methods to access or manipulate the stack. I just posted a couple of suggested ways this could be done for Velocity. I guess all it takes is adding another chapter to WebWork documentation that shows how to set up FreeMarker's built-in view servlet in the build.xml and maybe a small example. I can prepare this documentation if you're willing to place it into the Supported Views chapter. For examples, you will also want to implement the monthlist example plus some more substantive ones if possible. Cheers, Attila. /Rickard -Bill --- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com ___ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
