On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:04:55 -0300, Igor Drobiazko
<igor.drobia...@gmail.com> wrote:
C'mon. We don't need Tapestry 6. Tapestry 5.0 was release almost three
years ago. Since than we released 5.1, 5.2 and are just about to release
5.3.
Isn't it a proof that Tapestry team cares about framework's stability?
People who are still bashing Tapestry for being backward incompatible are
loosing their credibility. They go to conferences and talk about stuff
they have absolutely no idea about.
That's not my impression. Even losing credibility, they still make
Tapestry look like a project that doesn't care at all for backward
compatibility. As someone once said, a lie repeated times enough ends up
becoming the truth. :( People still find
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1303438/why-did-you-stop-using-tapestry,
and there's an answer with 82 upvotes which has many outdated points and
even some outright name calling (the writer called Howard a lier). All
this posted in 2009, when T5 was already 2 years old. I urge everyone to
go there, downvote that answer and maybe even upvote mine, which contains
some facts.
I believe that Tapestry 6 release would cause a lot of rummors and would
harm more.
The idea behind the T6 release would be to prove that backward
compatibility is kept between major versions.
Also note that our packages are org.apache.tapestry5.*. Releasing
Tapestry 6 would mean renaming packages which would break any existing
app. Why shall we do that?
Hmm, good catch. :) We could just leave the package name as is.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda.
Consultor, desenvolvedor e instrutor em Java, Tapestry e Hibernate
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
