Re: cgen

From: Mike Kienenberger (mkienen..mail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 10:59:14 EST

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: cgen"

    That's a good point. It does require a runtime VPP dependency.

            if (vppConfig != null) {
                velCtxt = vppConfig.getVelocityContext();
            }
            else {
                velCtxt = new VelocityContext();
            }

    I don't think we can drop 1.1 support altogether as it won't allow any
    upgrade path for people with custom templates. They'd have to
    rewrite all templates for 1.2.

    On 11/4/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > Mike,
    >
    > IIRC the only backwards compatibility issue with version 1.2 was that
    > it required vpp jars in runtime (anything else?) and I think we can
    > figure out some mechanism to hide VPP dependency if it is not
    > available in runtime.
    >
    > If that's the case, I'd say we should drop 1.1 all together. Am I
    > being too optimistic?
    >
    > Andrus
    >
    >
    > On Nov 4, 2005, at 2:30 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    > > Andrus,
    > >
    > > How do you feel about switching the default cgen version (and the 1.2
    > > modeler) from v1.1 over to v1.2?
    > >
    > > At this point, it's well-tested, and should be producing better code
    > > than cgen v1.1.
    > >
    > > Maybe from a backwards-compatibility standpoint, it makes more sense
    > > to just switch the modeler over, though, since that won't break
    > > anyone's ant scripts. However, that'd give two different generated
    > > results depending on whether someone was using the modeler or ant to
    > > generate their classes.
    > >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 10:59:16 EST