You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> on 2007/01/21 14:17:23 UTC
[S2] Freemarker 2.3.8? ( was Re: [S2] Freemarker Confusion)
We've been running against freemarker 2.3.4. Has anyone tried using 2.3.8?
Should we update our dependency from 2.3.4 to 2.3.8 ?
* http://freemarker.org/docs/app_versions.html
It's been out since July. I'm updating some training materials, and
I'll try it here locally.
-Ted.
On 1/20/07, Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>I see now that the syntax I was trying to use was
> added in Freemarker 2.3.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Freemarker 2.3.8? ( was Re: [S2] Freemarker Confusion)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 1/23/07, Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
In the case of commons-logging, we should stay current with Struts
1.x, since we are encouraging people to use 1.x and 2.x in the same
application, and this is the one dependency we share.
-T.
> On this subject, what about commons-logging 1.1? It seems to have a few
> more compatibility issues (where more is > 0) as noted in
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/commons-logging-1.1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
>
> In terms of calendar maturity, it's even older (May 2006) than Freemarker
> 2.3.8. Is it just an oversight that we haven't moved to it? or are the
> aforementioned compatibility issues considered more substantial?
>
> --
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
>
> "The truth is that we learned from João forever to be out of tune."
> -- Caetano Veloso
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Freemarker 2.3.8? ( was Re: [S2] Freemarker Confusion)
Posted by Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com>.
On 1/23/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> For the core, I believe the external dependencies are Freemarker,
> OGNL, XWork, and Commons Logging. Of course, adding plugins adds
> dependencies, but that's another matter.
>
> My heuristic is to stay current with the latest production release,
> unless there is a problem. Otherwise, people using the framework may
> run into conflicts Since we are a major consumer of most of these
> dependencies, it follows that we have a responsibility to stay current
> and help vet the latest releases.
I agree in principle. I am just recalling some of the to-do over Commons
libraries in the past and problems with version compatibility, etc. It's one
thing for us to bump our compile-time dependency on something; it's another
to then start capitalizing on syntax only available in that version to the
point where rolling back later after problems are discovered is a serious
challenge.
For Freemarker, at this time, I don't see that as a problem. The release is
mature, as far as open source goes. I'm +1 for moving to it.
On this subject, what about commons-logging 1.1? It seems to have a few
more compatibility issues (where more is > 0) as noted in
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/commons-logging-1.1/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
In terms of calendar maturity, it's even older (May 2006) than Freemarker
2.3.8. Is it just an oversight that we haven't moved to it? or are the
aforementioned compatibility issues considered more substantial?
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"The truth is that we learned from João forever to be out of tune."
-- Caetano Veloso
Re: [S2] Freemarker 2.3.8? ( was Re: [S2] Freemarker Confusion)
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
For the core, I believe the external dependencies are Freemarker,
OGNL, XWork, and Commons Logging. Of course, adding plugins adds
dependencies, but that's another matter.
My heuristic is to stay current with the latest production release,
unless there is a problem. Otherwise, people using the framework may
run into conflicts Since we are a major consumer of most of these
dependencies, it follows that we have a responsibility to stay current
and help vet the latest releases.
-Ted.
On 1/22/07, Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> I'm also going to run my local development with a dependency on FM 2.3.8. I
> reviewed the release notes and there are no obvious compatibility issues,
> plus, of course, a handful of bug fixes. It seems to have been stable for
> almost six months, so it seems safe for us to move to it.
>
> Do we have any heuristics for deciding when to change versions of
> dependencies? For projects with a strong commitment to backwards
> compatibility, it should generally make sense to move forward pretty
> directly with minor releases, but considering how many external dependencies
> we have, it seems like "rules" or some semblance thereof might be helpful.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 1/21/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > We've been running against freemarker 2.3.4. Has anyone tried using 2.3.8?
> >
> > Should we update our dependency from 2.3.4 to 2.3.8 ?
> >
> > * http://freemarker.org/docs/app_versions.html
> >
> > It's been out since July. I'm updating some training materials, and
> > I'll try it here locally.
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> > On 1/20/07, Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> > >I see now that the syntax I was trying to use was
> > > added in Freemarker 2.3.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [S2] Freemarker 2.3.8? ( was Re: [S2] Freemarker Confusion)
Posted by Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com>.
I'm also going to run my local development with a dependency on FM 2.3.8. I
reviewed the release notes and there are no obvious compatibility issues,
plus, of course, a handful of bug fixes. It seems to have been stable for
almost six months, so it seems safe for us to move to it.
Do we have any heuristics for deciding when to change versions of
dependencies? For projects with a strong commitment to backwards
compatibility, it should generally make sense to move forward pretty
directly with minor releases, but considering how many external dependencies
we have, it seems like "rules" or some semblance thereof might be helpful.
Joe
On 1/21/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We've been running against freemarker 2.3.4. Has anyone tried using 2.3.8?
>
> Should we update our dependency from 2.3.4 to 2.3.8 ?
>
> * http://freemarker.org/docs/app_versions.html
>
> It's been out since July. I'm updating some training materials, and
> I'll try it here locally.
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 1/20/07, Joe Germuska <jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> >I see now that the syntax I was trying to use was
> > added in Freemarker 2.3.7
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"The truth is that we learned from João forever to be out of tune."
-- Caetano Veloso