Re: FM Online improvements

[Daniel Dekany <dd...@apache.org>]

Any hope that you will continue work on this? (Now that we have the
try.freemarker.org at ASF, anything you do can be deployed pretty much
immediately.)


Thursday, August 18, 2016, 8:00:40 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:

> Thursday, August 18, 2016, 9:11:34 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>
>> Hey Daniel,
>>
>>      I have made the changes you have mentioned in the UI side. Yet
>> a quick question, You have mentioned auto import shouldn't be a
>> checkbox. But you have mentioned like
>> "[name       ]  [ ] Auto import  [ ] Auto include" .  
>>
>> We should have it as text box right ?
>
> Right, only a text box, no checkbox is needed for auto-import.
> Something like:
>
>   Auto import [prefix ]   [ ] Auto include
>
>> Regarding the Configuration , I see that we have a freeMarkerConfig
>> (instance of Configuration) and we actually build a Template and
>> TemplateConfiguration and is attached to the freemarkerConfig.
>>
>> Now in case of additional templates, If we create a Template (with
>> name) and TemplateConfiguration for each and attach to the
>> freeMarkerConfig (main configuration). 
>
> For now we have no reason to use separate TemplateConfiguration-s, as
> there are no UI controls to set any pre-template settings. What we
> will need is a separate Configuration for each request when(!) there
> are additional templates. That's because the TemplateLoader and
> template cache exists on the Configuration level, and each request
> will have a different set of additional templates.
>
>> Let me know if I am getting it wrong. 
>>
>> Pradeep.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:22 AM
>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) 
>>  
>> Tuesday, August 2, 2016, 2:39:45 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>>      Got the client side changes and have pushed  @
>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/freemarker-online/tree/additionalTemplates.
>>>
>>> Attached the screenshot of how it will look . Kindly let me know if there are any changes.
>>
>> I have just realized that auto-import shouldn't be a checkbox but a
>> text imput, as you have to specify the import prefix...
>>
>> Now that I see it with 2 additional templates, I think the "+" button
>> has some usability disadvantages. People expect the new template to
>> appear after the last template (as opposed to be inserted before the
>> first one). But the "+" button is always at top. So it would be better
>> after the last template. But then it's not entirely obvious what it
>> adds. So, how about having only this under the main template textarea
>> (note that there's no "Addition templates" title):
>>
>>    [Add template] to #import/#include
>>
>> where [Add template] is a button, and the text after it is a gray
>> hint. Now if someone adds a template, you will have:
>>
>>    Template to #import/#include:
>>    [name       ]  [ ] Auto import  [ ] Auto include
>>    [Enter template, like <#macro greet name>Hello ${name}!</#macro>]
>>
>>    [Add template] to #import/#include
>>
>> So as you can see, the the [Add template] button will be always at the
>> bottom, where the new template will be added if you press it. (If
>> someone adds multiple templates, there will be a "Template to
>> #import/#include:" label before each.)
>>
>> Note that I have also changed the textarea example text.
>>
>>
>>> I am going through the server side requirements/changes that needs
>>> to be done. Will come back once I have my questions ready.
>>
>> One tricky thing will be that FM-Online uses a shared singleton
>> Configuration currently, but the additional templates are named, so
>> the Configuration need to be aware of them. I guess the best will be
>> just creating a new drop-away Configuration instance in case there are
>> additional templates. (The other alternative is using a TLS-aware
>> TemplateChache, but that's probably too tricky for sparing those CPU
>> cycles.) (Yet another alternative is supporting Environment-local
>> named templates in FM 2.3.26... but that's the hardest of all.)
>>
>>> Pradeep.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1:39:01 AM
>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) 
>>>  
>>> Monday, August 1, 2016, 6:11:37 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>>     Got a chance to work on the task. I have come up with something
>>>> here http://codepen.io/pradeepmurugesan/pen/oLPNgQ.
>>>
>>> Looks fine.
>>>
>>>> I have the following questions. 
>>>>
>>>> 1. The pure css used by the online validator is pretty old . Do we
>>>> have any idea to replace the same with the latest version of
>>>> pure(http://purecss.io/) or bootstrap.
>>>
>>> You can update Pure if you want to, or use Bootstrap CSS... I don't
>>> know either. If you have experience with them, I will trust your
>>> judgement.
>>>
>>>> 2. How many such template can the user add. like can he keep on
>>>> adding it or we are going to put any restrictions there.
>>>
>>> To keep users from killing the server, let's say, the main template
>>> plus at most 3 importable/includable templates.
>>>
>>>> Kindly let me know any changes in the pen and also answer to the above.
>>>>
>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>
>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:59:34 AM
>>>> To: Daniel Dekany
>>>> Subject: Re: FM Online improvements (Was: Graduation issues) 
>>>>  
>>>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 8:24:21 AM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I should
>>>>
>>>> I meant "It should".
>>>>
>>>>> support adding arbitrary templates. As I imagine it, there
>>>>> would be an "Add template" button, and when you press it, it adds an
>>>>> extra text area, which has a template name input, an "auto import"
>>>>> checkbox, and an "auto include" checkbox, and a "Remove template"
>>>>> button over it.
>>>>
>>>> Another thing... we should add an "Incompatible improvements" dropdown
>>>> after the existing ones, which preselects the value of
>>>> Configuration.getVersion().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Monday, June 27, 2016, 7:24:19 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Cool..  I will start with adding the extra template name thing to
>>>>>> the online template tester. (#import and #include) . I would need
>>>>>> more pointers on the same. How have you visualised the same. 
>>>>>> Meaning , How the users can import other templates, we will give
>>>>>> provision to add other templates or we have some predefined
>>>>>> templates loaded , so that they can import the same ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:02:38 PM
>>>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan
>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Graduation issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to see you back!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are things to do, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't yet merged in your contribution with XML siblings (so it
>>>>>> won't be in 2.3.25 - sorry about that, next time), and AFAIR there
>>>>>> were some wrinkles to work on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done some of the planned improvements on
>>>>>> http://freemarker-online.kenshoo.com/ (mostly to draw attention to the
>>>>>> outputFormat setting of 2.3.24), but there are other things to do.
>>>>>> Apart from what was discussed earlier, I think supporting adding extra
>>>>>> templates with names would be handy, because then people can play
>>>>>> around with #import and #include.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then of course, there's http://freemarker.org/contribute.html with
>>>>>> even more things to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 12:27:01 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Daniel & team,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Sorry that I was dormant for a long time after a very short tent
>>>>>>> @ Freemaker. I am out of some critical issues and have some bandwidth from now on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindly let me know if there is anything I could help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pradeep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <dd...@freemail.hu>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 12:48:55 AM
>>>>>>> To: Sergio Fernández
>>>>>>> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Graduation issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we can start some discussion about that even now. Or at least
>>>>>>> I will tell what do I think about the state of the project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main problem is the number of active developers, which is 1, me.
>>>>>>> What if I'm hit by a truck tomorrow? We can hope that if there's a bug
>>>>>>> that concerns many, then someone will eventually fix it. After all the
>>>>>>> owner (ASF) won't be gone, the release infrastructure is there, etc.
>>>>>>> But as far as non-bugfix development goes, it's certain that things
>>>>>>> would stop. Some may say that that's OK for a project that's
>>>>>>> backward-compatibility-locked for 12 years now (the 2.x line is
>>>>>>> actually 14 years old). But of course that's just slow death if a
>>>>>>> project can't counter its old design problems and can't evolve to
>>>>>>> tackle new problems anymore. So indeed 2.x should switch to
>>>>>>> maintenance eventually (but ATM there are still things that can be
>>>>>>> done in 2.x), but only to give place for 3.x. Anyway, how to catch
>>>>>>> long standing developers? I don't think that 2.x have a real chance
>>>>>>> for that, because of all the legacy code burden piled up. (Some Apache
>>>>>>> projects have many paid contributors, but I think FM isn't the kind of
>>>>>>> project that can have that, so it's important that the developers want
>>>>>>> to fiddle with it for free.) So the 3.x jump will be necessary, and
>>>>>>> then, maybe, we can have a developer base growth (template engines
>>>>>>> isn't hot topic anymore, so I just mean having a few developers
>>>>>>> around). But 3.x is far away (if it will happen at all), and we can't
>>>>>>> hang around in the incubator forever. So, do you believe there's any
>>>>>>> chance to graduate with the current developer base?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Monday, June 13, 2016, 8:15:11 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Besides the technical discussion for 2.3.25-incubating, after that release
>>>>>>>> you may start to discuss a possible graduation. We have to discuss many
>>>>>>>> aspects (specially growth of the community), but technically speaking the
>>>>>>>> podling is capable os casting releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>  Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>  Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany