Also in favor of a separate tapestry subproject. The fact that there are multiple pieces (service(s), component(s), js, etc.) all coordinating together really makes it sound like this is appropriate as a standalone module, outside of core.
Robert On Jan 20, 2011, at 1/202:44 PM , Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:37:47 -0200, Josh Canfield <joshcanfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> Alternately, perhaps we need to resuscitate the idea of a standard >>> library (or libraries) beyond core. >> >> My gut tells me to pull as much of the system apart into independent >> modules as possible. Smaller is better, easier to understand, easier >> to test. > > Please do it as a Tapestry subproject (tapestry-morecomponents?) instead of > TapX or other external packages. It seems to me that people consider anything > outside the Tapestry project, even being linked from there, as not part of > the out-of-the-box experience. Something like "feature X is so important, but > I need a third-party package to have it" (something used a lot to criticize > JSF). > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer, and > instructor > Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. > http://www.arsmachina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
