You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@velocity.apache.org by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org> on 2018/09/30 06:33:01 UTC
Roadmap to VELTOOLS 3.0
Folks,
how close are we to verion 3.0, what is holding us off?
I'd like to fix (VELTOOLS-174), VELTOOLS-178, and VELTOOLS-179 while
Claude should take a look at VELTOOLS-162/-174 and we are set. Some docs
and READMEs need an update too.
Did I miss something?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Roadmap to VELTOOLS 3.0
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Am 2018-09-30 um 08:33 schrieb Michael Osipov:
> Folks,
>
> how close are we to verion 3.0, what is holding us off?
> I'd like to fix (VELTOOLS-174), VELTOOLS-178, and VELTOOLS-179 while
> Claude should take a look at VELTOOLS-162/-174 and we are set. Some docs
> and READMEs need an update too.
All done folks.
Claude, you can now go on and push finally the release of VELTOOLS 3.0.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Roadmap to VELTOOLS 3.0
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
So I have committed a branch for JSON stuff. Have a look. Looks straight
forward to me.
Michael
Am 2018-09-30 um 18:42 schrieb Claude Brisson:
> Hi.
>
> Thanks for your work on the POMs, Michael !
>
> About json-simple :
>
> - I'm not against relying on an external dependency rather than using
> shading, but github releases aren't directly available as maven
> dependencies, you have to use third party tools like jitpack. Or maybe I
> missed something.
>
> - Optional dependencies impose a burden on the user (who will
> typically hit an error message before realizing he has to declare
> himself the dependency) - don't presume this tool will only be sparsely
> used, generating json responses doesn't look so exotic.
>
> I'm not *that* strongly opposed to your proposal, but we're speaking
> about a 24K library whereas commons-digester weights 236K,
> commons-beanutils 241K, velocity-engine 422K, velocity-tools-generic
> 231K (*with* json-simple inside, true), velocity-tools-view 116K...
>
> So, should be shade the library or not, what's the real interest in
> using an optional dependency?
>
> Best,
>
> Claude
>
>
>>
>> how close are we to verion 3.0, what is holding us off?
>> I'd like to fix (VELTOOLS-174), VELTOOLS-178, and VELTOOLS-179 while
>> Claude should take a look at VELTOOLS-162/-174 and we are set. Some
>> docs and READMEs need an update too.
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Roadmap to VELTOOLS 3.0
Posted by Michael Osipov <mi...@apache.org>.
Hi Claude,
the new GH fork is on Central:
https://search.maven.org/artifact/com.github.cliftonlabs/json-simple/3.0.2/jar
I'd use that. You are right, of course, about the library size which I
did not check. It so small that is not worth the hassle to be optional
or shaded. We can simply include the dep and those who don't need JSON
can exclude the transitive dependency.
Any opinion about the other tickets?
Michael
Am 2018-09-30 um 18:42 schrieb Claude Brisson:
> Hi.
>
> Thanks for your work on the POMs, Michael !
>
> About json-simple :
>
> - I'm not against relying on an external dependency rather than using
> shading, but github releases aren't directly available as maven
> dependencies, you have to use third party tools like jitpack. Or maybe I
> missed something.
>
> - Optional dependencies impose a burden on the user (who will
> typically hit an error message before realizing he has to declare
> himself the dependency) - don't presume this tool will only be sparsely
> used, generating json responses doesn't look so exotic.
>
> I'm not *that* strongly opposed to your proposal, but we're speaking
> about a 24K library whereas commons-digester weights 236K,
> commons-beanutils 241K, velocity-engine 422K, velocity-tools-generic
> 231K (*with* json-simple inside, true), velocity-tools-view 116K...
>
> So, should be shade the library or not, what's the real interest in
> using an optional dependency?
>
> Best,
>
> Claude
>
>
>>
>> how close are we to verion 3.0, what is holding us off?
>> I'd like to fix (VELTOOLS-174), VELTOOLS-178, and VELTOOLS-179 while
>> Claude should take a look at VELTOOLS-162/-174 and we are set. Some
>> docs and READMEs need an update too.
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
Re: Roadmap to VELTOOLS 3.0
Posted by Claude Brisson <cl...@renegat.net.INVALID>.
Hi.
Thanks for your work on the POMs, Michael !
About json-simple :
- I'm not against relying on an external dependency rather than using
shading, but github releases aren't directly available as maven
dependencies, you have to use third party tools like jitpack. Or maybe I
missed something.
- Optional dependencies impose a burden on the user (who will
typically hit an error message before realizing he has to declare
himself the dependency) - don't presume this tool will only be sparsely
used, generating json responses doesn't look so exotic.
I'm not *that* strongly opposed to your proposal, but we're speaking
about a 24K library whereas commons-digester weights 236K,
commons-beanutils 241K, velocity-engine 422K, velocity-tools-generic
231K (*with* json-simple inside, true), velocity-tools-view 116K...
So, should be shade the library or not, what's the real interest in
using an optional dependency?
Best,
Claude
>
> how close are we to verion 3.0, what is holding us off?
> I'd like to fix (VELTOOLS-174), VELTOOLS-178, and VELTOOLS-179 while
> Claude should take a look at VELTOOLS-162/-174 and we are set. Some
> docs and READMEs need an update too.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
> Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@velocity.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@velocity.apache.org