You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@velocity.apache.org by "Townson, Chris" <C....@nature.com> on 2007/05/10 14:44:48 UTC
The Guardian website moves to Velocity
http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't already seen it.
It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they built: I know that we at Nature have been working towards a "component"-based system (which seems to be what they've developed at The Guardian) for a little while now and are shortly to go live with a Spring-based system for formalizing the management of the design and templating of large, complex, modular sites using Velocity.
There might be some common ground covered between us and The Guardian here which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
Best,
Chris
********************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
********************************************************************************
Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Posted by Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es>.
Malcolm Edgar wrote:
> Excellent choice, Velocity simplicity wins out over FM complexity :)
Nice story, nice spin on things, but it's not really accurate. If you
look at the blog article on www.niksilver.com you see in the 4th
paragraph or so:
<QUOTE>
I can’t honestly say that we ran a detailed and open comparison when we
chose a templating framework, ...
</QUOTE>
I mean, the guy is tacitly admitting that they really didn't compare
Velocity to anything else, it seems. <shrug>
To me, what this is really an example of is just how much credit people
give these Apache projects. This is a tangent, but, just as an example
of this, look at Struts. Technically, that project lapsed into a
horridly stagnant state and no forward progress was made on the project
for a period of 4 years or more. So, obviously, it became increasingly
uncompetitive with other web frameworks. Yet, still, after 4 years of
neglect, it was still dominant in usage out there. It was so inferior
that a competing web framework, Webwork, could be simply relabelled as
Struts 2.0. Basically, the Webwork people donated their work to ASF and
it got relabelled as Struts 2.0 so that they could leverage the Struts
and Apache brand names to get visibility for their far superior body of
work.
But let's step back and think about this a sec. It's really the
damnedest thing, you know. It's as if you go to the local farmer's
market, buy wonderful fresh produce, but your kids won't eat it. You
figure out that the only way to get them to eat the fresh vegetables is
to trick them, to convince them that the fresh veggies actually came out
of a tin can. Then they'll eat them. I mean, okay, it's a brutal
characterization, but I think it's accurate; people, by and large, would
not use Webwork, which was far superior to Struts, unless it got
relabelled as Struts. Then they'll all use it and, you know... yummy yum
yum.
All the stuff about Velocity being better because it's "simpler" is
pretty suspect. After all, if you look at the Velocity 2.0 roadmap, you
see that every new thing being proposed is stuff that was already
available in FreeMarker at least 4 years ago. It's obviously considered
that the extra features are desirable. Yet, when you talk about the
advantages of Velocity, it's the simplicity -- i.e. the lack of features
that is supposed to be an advantage.
So, you know, given that, I find it hard to believe that anybody who
wasn't born yesterday would take the simplicity rhetoric that seriously.
And, look, googling around, do you find anybody actually saying they
switched from FreeMarker to Velocity because they like all that
wonderful simplicity? No, you don't, you find people switching in the
other direction because they need the extra features; they were
specifically added because they do enhance productivity and so on.
The fact remains that people who work on front-end coding already deal
with things that are pretty complex. Even static HTML is fairly complex,
lots of tags and attributes. Introduce style sheets and even just a
smattering of javascript and you really have something that's pretty
complex. Complexity is a difficult thing to talk about, mind you, since
it's hard to precisely measure. But my sense of things is that
FreeMarker, within the range of things that these people work with, is
not excessively complex. I think it's much more accurate to say that
Velocity is excessively simple. This would be backed up by any searches
on the web, where people state clearly that they switched away from
Velocity because it simply does not have features they need in a
professional tool of this nature.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
I mean, there's so much insincere doubletalk. The @author tags
discussion over the dev list is just amazing.
>
> regards Malcolm Edgar
>
> On 5/10/07, Townson, Chris <C....@nature.com> wrote:
>
>> http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
>>
>> thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't
>> already seen it.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they
>> built: I know that we at Nature have been working towards a
>> "component"-based system (which seems to be what they've developed at
>> The Guardian) for a little while now and are shortly to go live with a
>> Spring-based system for formalizing the management of the design and
>> templating of large, complex, modular sites using Velocity.
>>
>> There might be some common ground covered between us and The Guardian
>> here which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> ********************************************************************************
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by
>> anyone who is
>> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail
>> in error
>> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other
>> storage
>> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
>> accept
>> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own
>> and not
>> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its
>> agents.
>> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its
>> agents
>> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this
>> e-mail or
>> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
>> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of
>> Macmillan
>> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication.
>> Macmillan
>> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered
>> number 785998
>> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
>> ********************************************************************************
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Posted by Malcolm Edgar <ma...@gmail.com>.
Excellent choice, Velocity simplicity wins out over FM complexity :)
regards Malcolm Edgar
On 5/10/07, Townson, Chris <C....@nature.com> wrote:
> http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
>
> thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't already seen it.
>
> It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they built: I know that we at Nature have been working towards a "component"-based system (which seems to be what they've developed at The Guardian) for a little while now and are shortly to go live with a Spring-based system for formalizing the management of the design and templating of large, complex, modular sites using Velocity.
>
> There might be some common ground covered between us and The Guardian here which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> ********************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> ********************************************************************************
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Posted by Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es>.
Malcolm Edgar wrote:
> Sorry this was flame bait.
Malcolm, I just reread the message I posted and that is quoted below. I
don't know on what grounds you are saying that it is a "flame" or "flame
bait". People simply pointing out things that you don't like them
pointing out is not what is meant by "flaming" or "trolling" or whatever
loaded term you might throw into the conversation.
Any serious discussion about creating (in the words of Chris Towson) a
complex, modular system would lead to the observation that VTL lacks
basic facilities for supporting modularity.
Now, what I'm going to say now may veer into flame territory. The things
I'm going to say are not politically correct, but I'm satified that
they're accurate, and also I say them in good faith:
Malcolm, I think everybody (at least who pays attention to this) knows
that you desperately want to get in on the ASF thing. You want to be
able to call your Click framework "Apache Click" or something like that,
because you believe (probably correctly) that you'll have 10 times as
many users if you can call it Apache Click and have it be hosted on
apache.org.
That's all fine, I guess. I understand it perfectly well. How many web
app frameworks are there out there? Geez, god only knows. So how do you
get anybody to pay any attention to your framework? It's tough, I know.
One way to really jump-start things would be to get in on ASF. But how
much are you willing to compromise your integrity to achieve the above goal?
I mean, trying to shut down a legitimate conversation about components
and modularity (or whatever the topic) on the grounds of it being flame
bait is ultimately ridiculous. The reason, you see, is that this would
ultimately preclude any serious conversation. Really, it would, because
any serious conversation about templating issues will tend to cast
Velocity in a poor light, because the tool really does lack basic
features that users of competing tools take for granted. That is
precisely why, when you google around, you see all kind of commentary
about switching from Velocity to FreeMarker, say, and nobody ever
switching in the opposite direction.
Broadly speaking, there is a state of the art in a field. If you more or
less abandon development for a period of 5 years, you will not have
something that is competitive with the state of the art.
The other striking thing about all of this is that you are even willing
to devalue your own pet project significantly to further your aims. I
mean, you want to convey the idea that there is some greater connection
or linkage between Velocity and Click than there really is. Typically
web app frameworks broadly similar to Click that use a template engine
for the view offer the developer a choice of various view tools, since
it is trivially simple to have an abstraction layer such that the
developer can choose. Obviously, letting people choose between Velocity
and FreeMarker would make Click a superior tool to only letting them use
Velocity. I even happened to notice that one of your users, Huy Do,
specifically requested FreeMarker support, and you didn't add it in.
This whole discussion:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.click.devel/830
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but my honest suspicion is that,
basically, you know that if you presented Velocity and FreeMarker as
options on an equal footing to use with Click, in short order, most of
your users would use FreeMarker. Then that would sort of kill your game
plan of representing that Click and Velocity actually have anything to
do with one another -- and that's your foot in the door for getting in
on the ASF thing, the Velocity people "mentoring" you and so on.
The above is a bit flamey, but I think it's accurate. You're probaboly a
nice guy and I don't really have anything against you. But I do find all
your behavior in this kind of cringeworthy.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
>
> cheers Malcolm
>
> On 5/11/07, Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
>> Townson, Chris wrote:
>> > http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
>> >
>> > thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't
>> already seen it.
>> >
>> > It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they
>> built:
>> > I know that we at Nature have been working towards a
>> "component"-based system
>>
>> I'm actually quite interested in this sort of thing and I wrote a blog
>> article about it. You might or might not find it interesting. Other
>> people might (or might not) find it interesting as well:
>>
>> http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/07/designerdeveloper-division-of-labor.html
>>
>>
>> There, you see that, I make no bones about what I think regarding
>> Velocity. It definitely seems to me that VTL is lacking certain basic
>> features that you would need to build reusable components. The macro
>> system is just too deficient.
>>
>> That's not just my opinion. For example, look at the comments by Ken
>> Egervari in this blog entry:
>>
>> http://jroller.com/page/raible?entry=freemarker_vs_velocity
>>
>> I'm referring to this part specifically, where Ken says:
>>
>> <QUOTE>
>> However, I've been doing some pretty complex stuff in the view. Now, I
>> don't mean I'm putting business logic in there - that's not it. I've
>> just been making massive amounts of investment in macro libraries and I
>> build higher-level marcos for all sorts of application-specific
>> presentation reuse. However, Velocity just isn't any good at doing this
>> - and I'm not even talking about large scale applications, I'm talking
>> about a small to medium-sized but featureful project a competent
>> developer can write in a few weeks.
>>
>> I think I've hit the capabilities of Velocity and I've been stretching
>> it quite a bit. Without named/optional parameters or even basic macro
>> overloading, I just can't build complex views and avoid duplication at
>> the same time very easily. It's like a pain in the ass just to add an
>> option column, button or sub-screen for a specific listing that uses the
>> general listing macro and so on. I have all kinds of cases where I have
>> to do functional-oriented type checking and it's inexcusable.
>>
>> Freemarker seems like the way to go. While it's probably more difficult,
>> the end result looks to be more like html. When I saw features for
>> unordered named, optional parameters and nested content, I realized that
>> these features alone make it better than Velocity because they just
>> aren't "nice" features, the are just down-right required.
>>
>> </QUOTE>
>>
>> The above comments were made several years ago, and I do not see any
>> forward movement in this project in terms of addressing the deficiencies
>> that Ken is mentioning there.
>>
>>
>> >(which seems to be what they've developed at The Guardian) for a
>> little while
>> >now and are shortly to go live with a Spring-based system for
>> formalizing
>> > the management of the design and templating of large, complex, modular
>> > sites using Velocity.
>>
>> Large, complex, modular sites using Velocity, eh? I suppose it's
>> possible. But really, you know, when you can't even #parse a set of
>> commonly used macros in a separate file, and there's no notion of
>> scoping or namespaces whatsoever, so that any variable defined locally
>> in a macro potentially clobbers variables defined elsewhere -- to rely
>> on that kind of tool to build something complex and modular, does not
>> seem like a very good technical decision. The tool simply lacks
>> necessary things for modularity.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > There might be some common ground covered between us and The
>> Guardian here
>> > which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
>>
>> Well, historically, lobbying Velocity developers for features that you
>> need has not been a very fruitful path. I won't go on further about
>> that, but surely you can perceive that, even bending over backwards to
>> be generous and all, you can't describe this as a very dynamic
>> environment, can you?
>>
>> Jonathan Revusky
>> --
>> lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
>>
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> ********************************************************************************
>>
>> > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by
>> anyone who is
>> > not the original intended recipient. If you have received this
>> e-mail in error
>> > please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any
>> other storage
>> > mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its
>> agents accept
>> > liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own
>> and not
>> > expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of
>> its agents.
>> > Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its
>> agents
>> > accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this
>> e-mail or
>> > its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
>> > attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of
>> Macmillan
>> > Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication.
>> Macmillan
>> > Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered
>> number 785998
>> > Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
>> >
>> ********************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Posted by Malcolm Edgar <ma...@gmail.com>.
Sorry this was flame bait.
cheers Malcolm
On 5/11/07, Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> Townson, Chris wrote:
> > http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
> >
> > thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't already seen it.
> >
> > It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they built:
> > I know that we at Nature have been working towards a "component"-based system
>
> I'm actually quite interested in this sort of thing and I wrote a blog
> article about it. You might or might not find it interesting. Other
> people might (or might not) find it interesting as well:
>
> http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/07/designerdeveloper-division-of-labor.html
>
> There, you see that, I make no bones about what I think regarding
> Velocity. It definitely seems to me that VTL is lacking certain basic
> features that you would need to build reusable components. The macro
> system is just too deficient.
>
> That's not just my opinion. For example, look at the comments by Ken
> Egervari in this blog entry:
>
> http://jroller.com/page/raible?entry=freemarker_vs_velocity
>
> I'm referring to this part specifically, where Ken says:
>
> <QUOTE>
> However, I've been doing some pretty complex stuff in the view. Now, I
> don't mean I'm putting business logic in there - that's not it. I've
> just been making massive amounts of investment in macro libraries and I
> build higher-level marcos for all sorts of application-specific
> presentation reuse. However, Velocity just isn't any good at doing this
> - and I'm not even talking about large scale applications, I'm talking
> about a small to medium-sized but featureful project a competent
> developer can write in a few weeks.
>
> I think I've hit the capabilities of Velocity and I've been stretching
> it quite a bit. Without named/optional parameters or even basic macro
> overloading, I just can't build complex views and avoid duplication at
> the same time very easily. It's like a pain in the ass just to add an
> option column, button or sub-screen for a specific listing that uses the
> general listing macro and so on. I have all kinds of cases where I have
> to do functional-oriented type checking and it's inexcusable.
>
> Freemarker seems like the way to go. While it's probably more difficult,
> the end result looks to be more like html. When I saw features for
> unordered named, optional parameters and nested content, I realized that
> these features alone make it better than Velocity because they just
> aren't "nice" features, the are just down-right required.
>
> </QUOTE>
>
> The above comments were made several years ago, and I do not see any
> forward movement in this project in terms of addressing the deficiencies
> that Ken is mentioning there.
>
>
> >(which seems to be what they've developed at The Guardian) for a
> little while
> >now and are shortly to go live with a Spring-based system for formalizing
> > the management of the design and templating of large, complex, modular
> > sites using Velocity.
>
> Large, complex, modular sites using Velocity, eh? I suppose it's
> possible. But really, you know, when you can't even #parse a set of
> commonly used macros in a separate file, and there's no notion of
> scoping or namespaces whatsoever, so that any variable defined locally
> in a macro potentially clobbers variables defined elsewhere -- to rely
> on that kind of tool to build something complex and modular, does not
> seem like a very good technical decision. The tool simply lacks
> necessary things for modularity.
>
>
> >
> > There might be some common ground covered between us and The Guardian here
> > which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
>
> Well, historically, lobbying Velocity developers for features that you
> need has not been a very fruitful path. I won't go on further about
> that, but surely you can perceive that, even bending over backwards to
> be generous and all, you can't describe this as a very dynamic
> environment, can you?
>
> Jonathan Revusky
> --
> lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ********************************************************************************
> > DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
> > not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
> > please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
> > mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> > liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
> > expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
> > Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> > accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
> > its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> > attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> > Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> > Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
> > Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> > ********************************************************************************
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: The Guardian website moves to Velocity
Posted by Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es>.
Townson, Chris wrote:
> http://niksilver.com/2007/05/10/guardian-unlimiteds-new-look-s
>
> thought this might interest members of this list, if you haven't already seen it.
>
> It would be interesting to know a little more about the tools they built:
> I know that we at Nature have been working towards a "component"-based system
I'm actually quite interested in this sort of thing and I wrote a blog
article about it. You might or might not find it interesting. Other
people might (or might not) find it interesting as well:
http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/07/designerdeveloper-division-of-labor.html
There, you see that, I make no bones about what I think regarding
Velocity. It definitely seems to me that VTL is lacking certain basic
features that you would need to build reusable components. The macro
system is just too deficient.
That's not just my opinion. For example, look at the comments by Ken
Egervari in this blog entry:
http://jroller.com/page/raible?entry=freemarker_vs_velocity
I'm referring to this part specifically, where Ken says:
<QUOTE>
However, I've been doing some pretty complex stuff in the view. Now, I
don't mean I'm putting business logic in there - that's not it. I've
just been making massive amounts of investment in macro libraries and I
build higher-level marcos for all sorts of application-specific
presentation reuse. However, Velocity just isn't any good at doing this
- and I'm not even talking about large scale applications, I'm talking
about a small to medium-sized but featureful project a competent
developer can write in a few weeks.
I think I've hit the capabilities of Velocity and I've been stretching
it quite a bit. Without named/optional parameters or even basic macro
overloading, I just can't build complex views and avoid duplication at
the same time very easily. It's like a pain in the ass just to add an
option column, button or sub-screen for a specific listing that uses the
general listing macro and so on. I have all kinds of cases where I have
to do functional-oriented type checking and it's inexcusable.
Freemarker seems like the way to go. While it's probably more difficult,
the end result looks to be more like html. When I saw features for
unordered named, optional parameters and nested content, I realized that
these features alone make it better than Velocity because they just
aren't "nice" features, the are just down-right required.
</QUOTE>
The above comments were made several years ago, and I do not see any
forward movement in this project in terms of addressing the deficiencies
that Ken is mentioning there.
>(which seems to be what they've developed at The Guardian) for a
little while
>now and are shortly to go live with a Spring-based system for formalizing
> the management of the design and templating of large, complex, modular
> sites using Velocity.
Large, complex, modular sites using Velocity, eh? I suppose it's
possible. But really, you know, when you can't even #parse a set of
commonly used macros in a separate file, and there's no notion of
scoping or namespaces whatsoever, so that any variable defined locally
in a macro potentially clobbers variables defined elsewhere -- to rely
on that kind of tool to build something complex and modular, does not
seem like a very good technical decision. The tool simply lacks
necessary things for modularity.
>
> There might be some common ground covered between us and The Guardian here
> which could be fed back into the Velocity project itself, perhaps?
Well, historically, lobbying Velocity developers for features that you
need has not been a very fruitful path. I won't go on further about
that, but surely you can perceive that, even bending over backwards to
be generous and all, you can't describe this as a very dynamic
environment, can you?
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> ********************************************************************************
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
> ********************************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@velocity.apache.org