Re: Any plans for a 100% wm syntax compatibility?

Hi,

First I would like to thank you for your response.
Please see my comments inline:

Jonathan Revusky-3 wrote:
> 
>> are there any plans to support 100% "wm" (well I mean Velocity :) )
>> syntax?
>> I mean 100% in the template files (maybe with some switch property in the
>> config of FM)?
> We have a conversion utility that works pretty well for just changing 
> the syntax. 
> 
I discussed with a few developers that are in the same situation as ours,
and unfortunately a conversion is not the solution in most cases :(. 
In our case the situation is the following:
- there are several thousands user created templates by the customer's
employees - (by non-programmers).
- the customer decided to use the wm syntax cause it was the simplest
available for the required tasks, and it was already very hard making the
users to learn it even that simple syntax.
- the templates are mostly text with few variables and even less standard
velocity macros and no use of Velocity Tools.
- there are a few tools by a 3rd party that enforce that the vm syntax is
correct in the user's template (and even further restricts it to the
project's requiremets).

So as you can see, changing the syntax is not an option for us.
We (the developers) would like to switch the "engine" but are not allowed to
touch the rest.
The main reason for us to switch is that it looks like there's no relevant
progress in the Velocity project despite some changes in in their repository
(99,99% pure code cosmetics and reformat). Also there's a strange thing over
there in the last years of replying to user questions with other
questions/requests :(.


Jonathan Revusky-3 wrote:
> 
> Of course, Velocity syntax could be supported, ....
> 
Well I think that would be fantastic, would make a lot of buzz arround and
would for sure be the last nail in V..'s coffin :).


Jonathan Revusky-3 wrote:
> 
> and also, that some of freemarker's most appealing 
> features would not be available, since you can't express them using 
> Velocity syntax.
> 
This would not be a problem cause it's not required as the actual
implementation is using Velocity, and
the main reason for switch would be the fact that this engine is alive, not
the extra features.

Thank you,

Demetrios.
-- 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freemat/
http://freemat.sourceforge.net

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Any-plans-for-a-100--wm-syntax-compatibility--tp16197027p16247907.html
Sent from the freemarker-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/