"James Carman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/07/2006 19:34:21:
> Howard, I know you're very innovative and all, but doesn't this really sound > somewhat crazy to you? If you really want Tapestry to gain acceptance, then > backward compatibility is a big issue. I jumped into the Tapestry world > with the 4.0 release and I'm really enjoying it, but if switching to 5.x is > going to be "VERY difficult", then I don't know if I'll ever upgrade. > Tapestry is definitely (IMHO) very superior to the "standard" JSF, but if it > keeps becoming a "moving target", then it will never gain market acceptance. Well said. We have a fairly big set of Tapestry 3 applications, to give you an idea of scale we have XX .page files, and we have a cycle of development which has significant peaks and troughs. We have to take on contract resource to help with the peaks, this is hard to do when the tapestry skills aren't available, it will never get any easier if Tapestry doesn't start to settle down. If we continue to have difficulty sourcing contract resource for our tapestry applications and even worse can't off-shore any of it either (for the same reason) we will be forced to move to JSF simply because those skills are available, and I'd hate for that to happen. <snip/> (On the subject of IoC perhaps some consideration could be given to using existing IoC rather than hand-roll a new solution for every new Tapestry version.) > > Tapestry is starting to get a bad reputation for not supporting > backward compatibility. Again, I think the direction you're heading is a > good one, if you don't have to consider your current users, but we don't > have that luxury. +1. Tapestry is a good answer to a problem that has beset Java since day 1 of the servlet API, but widespread adoption will only come if its use can be managed by ordinary managers in ordinary projects for real employers. We have to account for the costs of choosing Tapestry, and when that cost doesn't reduce (beacuse of the lack of skils in the market place and the cost of upgrading) like we said it would (which we predicted because of Tapestry's leveraging of OO reuse) then the pressure is on to look for an alternative which might be less attractive from a programmers prespective but will have a much more manageable cost model. d. ******************************************************************************************************* The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ******************************************************************************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
