Re: [Springframework-developer] FreeMarker

[Darren D. <da...@da...>]

> I agree regarding the amount of time available for testing: If you feel
> that you won't be able to test it properly in time, then don't commit i=
t
> to the main source tree but rather to the sandbox.

no problem.

> The FreeMarker 2.2/2.3 issue is quite important: 2.3 is in "preview" st=
ate
> - not very convincing... This is a strong argument for *not* including =
it
> in Spring 1.0 final but indeed delaying it till 1.1 M1.

I think the FM versioning nomenclature is quite conservative - 2.3 is in
it's 16th iteration now.  However, I agree that at least an RC labeled
release is required to inspire confidence.

> BTW, have you already tested Velocity 1.4 RC1? Is it a drop-in replacem=
ent
> for Velocity 1.3.1 with our VelocityView?

I've not yet tried it, but I'm surprised they went for a 1.4 version
rather than a 1.3.2 since all of the changes in 1.4 look pretty minor to
me.  IIRC, none of them will affect Spring's usage as the few API changes
simply involve deprecating the Runtime and VelocityServlet classes for
alternatives.  I'll grab a copy and see what happens, but there's a sligh=
t
concern that 1.5 appears to fix a memory leak bug introduced in 1.4.  I'd
like to know more about that!


--=20
Darren Davison
Public Key: http://www.davison.uk.net/key.jsp