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

On 2008.04.01., at 0:24, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>
> Is there an extended velocity syntax that could offer FreeMarker's
> capabilities but would be backward compatible with Velocity templates
> (most of them at least)?

Maybe, but what problem would that solve? The only reason for  
existence of a Vel->FM bridge is to support people stuck with an  
existing set of .vm files. An "extended Velocity syntax" doesn't sound  
to me as something with too much appeal for anyone.

>
>
> I think it could be interesting to work up an alternative parser for
> that syntax and offer it. Also, by breaking out the syntax like  
> that, it
> would clean out a lot of FreeMarker's basic design. So it's an idea...
> but I don't think that a crippled FreeMarker that uses Velocity syntax
> is really very appealing.

Nope. On the other hand, I already proposed once that we could maybe  
decouple the parser from the AST by introducing an intermediate event  
system; parser would emit events (a la SAX; to stick with XML analogy)  
and its default client would build the AST (a la SAX parser based DOM  
builder); the AST-building event consumer could of course be fed from  
a different event producer; i.e. a parser for a different syntax. I'm  
not sure how good an idea is it; it's just an idea :-)

Attila.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace