Re: Free Htmltemplate: Java implementation of HTML::Template

Philip S Tellis <philip.tellis@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Sometime on Feb 18, Hrvoje Niksic assembled some asciibets to say:
>
>> Allow me to announce the availability of a Java implementation of
>> HTML::Template.  The home page is at:
>> 
>>     http://htmltemplate.inet.hr/
>
> Uh, there already was a java version of html template at 
> http://html-tmpl-java.sourceforge.net/
>
> why start a new project?

It's not new and, more importantly, it didn't start out as a fork.
When I started writing Free Htmltemplate in 2002, I wasn't originally
aware of your version.  I even announced a release back in 2002:

    http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/23294/2002/10/0/9958609/

Later I did come across your HTML.Template, but I found that I
preferred some of the design and implementation choices I've made.
I'll list some examples that convinced me to stick with a separate
implementation:

* HTML.Template didn't seem to offer a caching facility.  One of the
  strong points of Free Htmltemplate is the ability to request
  transparent caching of compiled templates (including optimizations
  like blind cache), but also to simply retrieve the CompiledTemplate
  object and use it later.

* Free Htmltemplate is written with multithreaded environment in mind
  from the start.  For example, the transparent caching code is
  careful to synchronize accesses to its data structures, while making
  sure that synchronization doesn't degrade into serialization through
  long-standing locks.

* I had different ideas of what the translation of HTML::Template's
  API to Java should look like.  For example, I don't have methods
  that accept Object[] arguments that closely follow Perl's subroutine
  call model.  The Free Htmltemplate approach seems more "Java-like"
  to me, while retaining the spirit of the original API.  This is
  surely deep in the realms of personal taste, but I invite you to
  take a look and judge for yourself.

* I used the new API's such as Collections, Iterators, etc. and did
  not want to revert to Hashtables, Vectors, and Enumerations.  This
  is a matter of taste as well.

* My simple-minded benchmarks showed that my implementation was
  faster.  This might simple be a consequence of the caching.

None of this is meant as an argument that my program is in any way
"better" than yours, just as an explanation of why I didn't just pick
up your version when I became aware of it.



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click