This seems great to me. My first question is, can we put your other two emails out on the wiki (maybe linked off a new page http://wiki.apache.org/beehive/FeatureDesign )? I think they're really helpful as background.
Two comments below... Daryl Olander wrote: >This thread is intended to discuss the SimpleTags and if we go forward with >them or not. > >These are what I think are the advantages of creating a new tag set > >1) It separates the UI logic into a light weight component model (Behaviors) >in the same way JSF did, in fact rendering itself is also separate. >2) It cleanly issolates itself from the Servlet and PageFlow dependencies >3) It offers a significantly cleaner base implimentation from which we can >add AJAX and other tag features >4) It is based on the JSP Simple tags and provides a single base class >5) It can be adopted as a UI layer in Velocity and possible Spring WebFlow >or Clarity > >There are a bunch of disadvantages >1) It's a new tag library and we already have a good library (from the users >perspective) >2) We would have to move forward all of the tags (Databinding, Templates, >Tree, etc) >3) The upgrade is straight forward, but not "perfect". Some features like >JavaScript and Error reporting work differently, in a well formed document, >they work the same. > >There are a number of issues unresolved: >1) Should the Tag API match 100% (better for upgrade) or do we cleanup the >API (remove some of the struts like support from Form for example)? >2) Do we simply deprecate the old tag library or keep it alive for simple >enhancements and bug fixes while adding new features like AJAX to the new >tag library? > > > These are hard questions. Given that we went 1.0 with the old tag set, I personally feel that we should keep it alive (but not with new features), and not deprecate it. This takes off some of the pressure to have a 100% match between the APIs/attributes. Does that seem reasonable, or will it be a huge burden? Rich >Thoughts? > > >
