Hi, @Chris: Where it's feasible we use Jackson, too. But sometimes it's easier to just use a more "dumb but still JSON-compatible" type without needing an ObjectMapper. And the first-class support of in many parts of Tapestry makes it a better choice for smaller use-cases. So more functionality in these types would be great.
@David: I didn't want to touch much of the existing stuff, but you're right. The "happy path" design can be such a nuisance sometimes... Looks like I'm going to write a small proposal of my planned changes and additions, to have something to discuss, and to better manage scope. Ben
