Hello Nathan Le jeudi 09 mars 2006 à 14:28 -0800, Nathan Bubna a écrit : > Question #1 - Does anyone else want to take point on the future of > VelocityStruts? I'm content to help support and maintain > VelocityStruts 1.2 for a while, but beyond that, i think i need to bow > out of the game. if no one steps up, VelocityTools 1.3 won't support > Struts 1.3 features and may not even turn out to be compatible. if > that turns out to be true, then it might be time to drop > VelocityStruts (or hand it off to the Struts folks) and move on to a > VelocityTools 2.x without a VelocityStruts component.
I'm not using Struts nor VelocityStruts, so of course I'm in favour of a VelocityTools 2.x. I never used Struts since it always seemed quite bloated to me, and that is the exact reason why I like the lightweight aspects of VelocityTools. So I've always seen VelocityStruts as a very paradoxal entity... > Question #2 - What do you think of these ideas? Idea #1 - commons-logging: I'm quite neutral on this. Idea #2 - reflection: Great ! And backward compatible, by the way. Idea #3 - veltag: As long as veltag tools don't pollute too much Generic and View tools! I'm not using it either. Idea #4 - standalone toolbox: if it's easier for 2.x, ok, but I thought there already was a patch for it?! Idea #5 - syntax simplification: it is always great. > Question #3 - Does anyone really want any of these in a VelocityTools > 1.3? Or should we just move on to work on a VelocityTools 2? AFAIAC, 2.x is ok. > Question #4 - Are there any other "big" ideas out there for a VelocityTools 2? What about tools pooling ? Also, do you remember my proposal to have regexp scopes for tools? The idea was that regexp scopes are thinner than the request scope: tools are instanciated only if the URL matches the regexp. I'm quite sure that the performance issue is not that great for compiled regexps. Otherwise - VelocityView is a minimal web framework - as such, it deals with some problematics that are more linked to standard webapp concerns than to Velocity itself. So my question: To be able to provide a ready-to-use webapp, should the view tools adress standard web problematics like validation, authentication, and the like? > then my last and lesser question is... > > Question #5 - joda-time (http://joda-time.sourceforge.net/) is great. > i want to see support for it in DateTool (or a new tool if need be). > i haven't had time to tackle this myself. has anyone else done this > yet? anyone want to? i'll probably get to it eventually, but as you > can see from the above, i already have bitten off a lot to chew. :) Interesting. Cheers, Claude --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
