[VOTE] Separate runtime instance Velocity

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>]

There has been a version of Velocity, src and jar, in whiteboard/geir
for 2 weeks now that is an approach to providing the 'separate instance'
functionality that people have been asking for.  There have been a few
users that have tested it with positive feedback, and I think that there
is no downside to this approach - it should be just as fast (or faster -
I found a bug I fixed :) than the current post 1.1 codebase.

What this does is allow you to avoid the singleton model of Velocity,
and create separate, independant new instances of Velocity :

  VelocityEngine ve = new VelocityEngine();

I would like to check this in, as moving forward with anything else is
somewhat painful for me as I must update both in my separate instance
source tree, as well as my 'HEAD' source tree.

There are still three outstanding issues that I will take care of, 1 the
bug reported by VM_INLINE_LOCAL bug reported by Dan, the implied init(),
and what appears to be a logger issue, reported by Piero.

Thoughts?

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr.                           geirm@optonline.net
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web?  See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

Re: [VOTE] Separate runtime instance Velocity

[Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>]

Christoph Reck <Ch...@dlr.de> writes:

> I'm +1 for the move, I will upgrade sooner or later and I believe the
> multiple instance feature is required by some people. The few tests
> and comments showed that it should be no pains for using it (besides 
> the few that are using the Runtime directly...).

My thoughts echo Christoph's.  +1

Re: [VOTE] Separate runtime instance Velocity

[Christoph Reck <Ch...@dlr.de>]

I'm +1 for the move, I will upgrade sooner or later and I believe the
multiple instance feature is required by some people. The few tests
and comments showed that it should be no pains for using it (besides 
the few that are using the Runtime directly...).

Cheers,
:) Christoph


"Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> 
> There has been a version of Velocity, src and jar, in whiteboard/geir
> for 2 weeks now that is an approach to providing the 'separate instance'
> functionality that people have been asking for.  There have been a few
> users that have tested it with positive feedback, and I think that there
> is no downside to this approach - it should be just as fast (or faster -
> I found a bug I fixed :) than the current post 1.1 codebase.
> 
> What this does is allow you to avoid the singleton model of Velocity,
> and create separate, independant new instances of Velocity :
> 
>   VelocityEngine ve = new VelocityEngine();
> 
> I would like to check this in, as moving forward with anything else is
> somewhat painful for me as I must update both in my separate instance
> source tree, as well as my 'HEAD' source tree.
> 
> There are still three outstanding issues that I will take care of, 1 the
> bug reported by VM_INLINE_LOCAL bug reported by Dan, the implied init(),
> and what appears to be a logger issue, reported by Piero.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> geir

Re: [VOTE] Separate runtime instance Velocity

[Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>]

on 7/28/01 4:13 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net> wrote:

> 
> There has been a version of Velocity, src and jar, in whiteboard/geir
> for 2 weeks now that is an approach to providing the 'separate instance'
> functionality that people have been asking for.  There have been a few
> users that have tested it with positive feedback, and I think that there
> is no downside to this approach - it should be just as fast (or faster -
> I found a bug I fixed :) than the current post 1.1 codebase.
> 
> What this does is allow you to avoid the singleton model of Velocity,
> and create separate, independant new instances of Velocity :
> 
> VelocityEngine ve = new VelocityEngine();
> 
> I would like to check this in, as moving forward with anything else is
> somewhat painful for me as I must update both in my separate instance
> source tree, as well as my 'HEAD' source tree.
> 
> There are still three outstanding issues that I will take care of, 1 the
> bug reported by VM_INLINE_LOCAL bug reported by Dan, the implied init(),
> and what appears to be a logger issue, reported by Piero.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> geir

+1

-jon

RE: [VOTE] Separate runtime instance Velocity

[Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>]

I am starting to use the multiple instance and I am finding "new" 
advantages in terms of code/template simplicity with this approach.

I will post a small report about my "findings".

Thanks,
Paulo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmj@mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net [mailto:gmj@mta8.srv.hcvlny.cv.net]On
> Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr.
> 
> 
> There has been a version of Velocity, src and jar, in whiteboard/geir
> for 2 weeks now that is an approach to providing the 'separate instance'
> functionality that people have been asking for.  There have been a few
> users that have tested it with positive feedback, and I think that there
> is no downside to this approach - it should be just as fast (or faster -
> I found a bug I fixed :) than the current post 1.1 codebase.
> 
> What this does is allow you to avoid the singleton model of Velocity,
> and create separate, independant new instances of Velocity :
> 
>   VelocityEngine ve = new VelocityEngine();
> 
> I would like to check this in, as moving forward with anything else is
> somewhat painful for me as I must update both in my separate instance
> source tree, as well as my 'HEAD' source tree.
> 
> There are still three outstanding issues that I will take care of, 1 the
> bug reported by VM_INLINE_LOCAL bug reported by Dan, the implied init(),
> and what appears to be a logger issue, reported by Piero.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> geir