Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Right now, I'm thinking of a new annotation that would allow you to map a component field directly to a Session attribute; the session attribute keys used by a T3 or T4 app are very predictable and this would allow the T5 app to share data where appropriate without the fuss of using the Session API directly. On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Andy Pahne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howard Lewis Ship schrieb: >> >> ... >> I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the >> best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. >> >> I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between >> the apps easier. >> >> > > > The discussion about the package name got very long, but nobody was > interested in the "new T5 tools to make sharing data [...] easier". > > I am very interested how you will integrate T4 and T5 apps. Having such an > integration would be a viable upgrade path. > > Could you please share your thoughts on the integration tools? > > Thanks, > Andy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Howard Lewis Ship schrieb: ... I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between the apps easier. The discussion about the package name got very long, but nobody was interested in the "new T5 tools to make sharing data [...] easier". I am very interested how you will integrate T4 and T5 apps. Having such an integration would be a viable upgrade path. Could you please share your thoughts on the integration tools? Thanks, Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
And the commits are there, so it's already been done. I think we can wrap up the thread. Christian. On 20-May-08, at 14:45 , Kevin Menard wrote: Par for the course in a beta framework. I'll grant you that this is a much larger change than is typical for a beta, but it's a now-or- never situation, too. I don't think releasing T5 and then changing all the packages around would be prudent. -- Kevin On May 20, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Renat Zubairov wrote: Hi -1 to t5 -1 to tapestry5 IMHO in release candidate it is not acceptable! Release the 5.0 and then change it. Think about existing T5 applications. -- Best regards, Renat Zubairov - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Par for the course in a beta framework. I'll grant you that this is a much larger change than is typical for a beta, but it's a now-or-never situation, too. I don't think releasing T5 and then changing all the packages around would be prudent. -- Kevin On May 20, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Renat Zubairov wrote: Hi -1 to t5 -1 to tapestry5 IMHO in release candidate it is not acceptable! Release the 5.0 and then change it. Think about existing T5 applications. -- Best regards, Renat Zubairov - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Hi -1 to t5 -1 to tapestry5 IMHO in release candidate it is not acceptable! Release the 5.0 and then change it. Think about existing T5 applications. -- Best regards, Renat Zubairov - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 for org.apache.tapestry5 Tapestry 5 is fundamentally separate as a product from tapestry 4. tapestry.v5 gains nothing extra. V6 is far off and marketing-wise it would not be much of an issue to keep the package name at that time (under the hood item, post sale). Szemere
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 for org.apache.tapestry5 I havent given it too much thought, but sounds ok Davor Hrg On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Martin Strand < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new next > generation. > > I think that would be Tapestry Deep Space Nine. :P > > > On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:28:12 +0200, Christian Edward Gruber < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Heh. The fish bit did get kinda carried away there. But I guess > > we're still united by the "fillet" designation. ;) > > > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new > > next generation. It gets silly. Either a version or a codename, I > > figure. Maybe "sb" for "strutsbuster". > > > > Christian. > > > > On 20-May-08, at 06:24 , kranga wrote: > > > >> Somebody likes fish :) > >> > >> +1 for the idea > >> -1 for the fishiness of it! > >> > >> I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the > >> version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" > >> > >> My suggestion would be > >> > >> org.apache.tapestry.ng(for Next Generation) > >> > >> or along the food line: > >> > >> org.apache.tapestry.mignon > >> org.apache.tapestry.ribeye > >> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip > >> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse > >> > >> you get the drift :) > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "Christian Edward Gruber" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> To: "Tapestry users" > >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM > >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > >> > >> > >>> Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really > >>> "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural > >>> bases. You might call them three different web frameworks > >>> entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to > >>> overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might > >>> as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you > >>> have > >>> > >>> org.apache.tapestry.trout > >>> org.apache.tapestry.tuna > >>> org.apache.tapestry.tilapia > >>> > >>> Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact > >>> that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should > >>> have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just > >>> making a point) > >>> > >>> Christian. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: > >>> > >>>> I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. > >>>> > >>>> The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 > >>>> users > >>>> now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? > >>>> The version number will still be in the code base by then. > >>>> If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to > >>>> 2011 > >>>> or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 > >>>> package names > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>> markus, > >>>>> > >>>>> i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" > >>>>> but i go even conform with your mind. > >>>>> > >>>>> if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay > >>>>> alienated for that, > >>>>> > >>>>> but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for > >>>>> some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. > >>>>> > >>>>> but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, > >>>>> if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" > >>>>> and belive their own mind voice. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>>> > >>>>
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
> I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new next > generation. I think that would be Tapestry Deep Space Nine. :P On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:28:12 +0200, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh. The fish bit did get kinda carried away there. But I guess > we're still united by the "fillet" designation. ;) > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new > next generation. It gets silly. Either a version or a codename, I > figure. Maybe "sb" for "strutsbuster". > > Christian. > > On 20-May-08, at 06:24 , kranga wrote: > >> Somebody likes fish :) >> >> +1 for the idea >> -1 for the fishiness of it! >> >> I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the >> version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" >> >> My suggestion would be >> >> org.apache.tapestry.ng(for Next Generation) >> >> or along the food line: >> >> org.apache.tapestry.mignon >> org.apache.tapestry.ribeye >> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip >> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse >> >> you get the drift :) >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED] >> > >> To: "Tapestry users" >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >> >> >>> Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really >>> "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural >>> bases. You might call them three different web frameworks >>> entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to >>> overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might >>> as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you >>> have >>> >>> org.apache.tapestry.trout >>> org.apache.tapestry.tuna >>> org.apache.tapestry.tilapia >>> >>> Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact >>> that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should >>> have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just >>> making a point) >>> >>> Christian. >>> >>> >>> On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. >>>> >>>> The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 >>>> users >>>> now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? >>>> The version number will still be in the code base by then. >>>> If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to >>>> 2011 >>>> or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 >>>> package names >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > wrote: >>>>> markus, >>>>> >>>>> i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" >>>>> but i go even conform with your mind. >>>>> >>>>> if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay >>>>> alienated for that, >>>>> >>>>> but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for >>>>> some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. >>>>> >>>>> but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, >>>>> if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" >>>>> and belive their own mind voice. >>>>> >>>>> 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version >>>>>> numbers into package names. >>>>>> In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not >>>>>> for >>>>>> technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse >>>>>> developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication >>>>>> might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. >>>>>> I guess that they are the mino
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Renaming T3 and T4 packages is not an option. T5 is still pre- release, so it is an option. -- Kevin On May 20, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Marcus wrote: if T5 willBeCompatibleWith T(5+n) andT5 shouldWorkWith T(5-n) then rename T(5-n) annotations packages; else if T5 willBeNotCompatibleWith T(5+n) then rename all Tapestry packages; Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Heh. The fish bit did get kinda carried away there. But I guess we're still united by the "fillet" designation. ;) I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new next generation. It gets silly. Either a version or a codename, I figure. Maybe "sb" for "strutsbuster". Christian. On 20-May-08, at 06:24 , kranga wrote: Somebody likes fish :) +1 for the idea -1 for the fishiness of it! I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" My suggestion would be org.apache.tapestry.ng(for Next Generation) or along the food line: org.apache.tapestry.mignon org.apache.tapestry.ribeye org.apache.tapestry.nystrip org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse you get the drift :) - Original Message - From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: "Tapestry users" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural bases. You might call them three different web frameworks entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you have org.apache.tapestry.trout org.apache.tapestry.tuna org.apache.tapestry.tilapia Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just making a point) Christian. On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 users now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? The version number will still be in the code base by then. If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to 2011 or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 package names On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: markus, i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" but i go even conform with your mind. if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay alienated for that, but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" and belive their own mind voice. 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree. -Original Message- From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- with regards Sven Homburg http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For addit
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Somebody likes fish :) +1 for the idea -1 for the fishiness of it! I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" My suggestion would be org.apache.tapestry.ng(for Next Generation) or along the food line: org.apache.tapestry.mignon org.apache.tapestry.ribeye org.apache.tapestry.nystrip org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse you get the drift :) - Original Message - From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tapestry users" Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural bases. You might call them three different web frameworks entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you have org.apache.tapestry.trout org.apache.tapestry.tuna org.apache.tapestry.tilapia Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just making a point) Christian. On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 users now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? The version number will still be in the code base by then. If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to 2011 or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 package names On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: markus, i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" but i go even conform with your mind. if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay alienated for that, but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" and belive their own mind voice. 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree. -Original Message- From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- with regards Sven Homburg http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
They're nightly for a reason. If you've been using nightlies you've done so at your own risk, and if you require preserving your app against a certain nightly, the deploy with the exact nightly you need. Moritz Gmelin wrote: > Hi, > > would it be possible to do a 5.0.12 release and then do this renaming? > I fear to use the nightly build because of such issues. > > Thanks > > Moritz > > > > > Am 20.05.2008 um 08:06 schrieb Jun Tsai: > >> org.apache.tapestry.v5 >> >> +1 > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://thegodcode.net - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Hi, would it be possible to do a 5.0.12 release and then do this renaming? I fear to use the nightly build because of such issues. Thanks Moritz Am 20.05.2008 um 08:06 schrieb Jun Tsai: org.apache.tapestry.v5 +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
org.apache.tapestry.v5 +1
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
if T5 willBeCompatibleWith T(5+n) andT5 shouldWorkWith T(5-n) then rename T(5-n) annotations packages; else if T5 willBeNotCompatibleWith T(5+n) then rename all Tapestry packages; Marcus
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural bases. You might call them three different web frameworks entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you have org.apache.tapestry.trout org.apache.tapestry.tuna org.apache.tapestry.tilapia Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just making a point) Christian. On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 users now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? The version number will still be in the code base by then. If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to 2011 or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 package names On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: markus, i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" but i go even conform with your mind. if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay alienated for that, but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" and belive their own mind voice. 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree. -Original Message- From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- with regards Sven Homburg http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Actually, I think it's aimed at people that want to use both T4 and T5 in the same WAR. For example, I have a set of data objects in one package shared between a T4 and a T5 app. I'm not about to rewrite that T4 app, os that's a non-starter. Unfortunately, this also means I can't use any T5 annotations on those DOs, which is a shame considering how much simpler it could make things in the T5 app. Now, I'm not looking for the annotations to do anything in the T4 app, but with a clashing names, it's not even possible. I suspect others will have similar transitional issues while moving to T5. -- Kevin On 5/19/08 5:39 PM, "Joel Wiegman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm with Markus. > > Personally, I'm kind of shocked this is even under consideration. > > "Versioning" your package structure is a band-aid to the real problem, > which is people not being able to control their class-loaders. > > If you deploy your Tapestry 4 app in one WAR and your Tapestry 5 app in > another WAR then this should not be an issue. Per the portability > section of the JavaEE spec, the classloaders of WARs should be entirely > independent. In my mind, the only people this applies to are people who > have deviated from the JavaEE spec, and I don't really see why we should > make exceptions for them. > > People commonly have several differing versions of Log4J and XML parsers > within their application server, there's no reason to make an exception > for Tapestry. > > -1 for org.tapestry.apache.v5.0.12 > > > -----Original Message- > From: Markus Joschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:20 PM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > > Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version > numbers into package names. > In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for > technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse > developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? > > Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might > have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. > I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them > to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to > which tapestry version. > > so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. > > my 2cents, > Markus > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree. >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >>> To: Tapestry users >>> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >>>> org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit >>> of >>>> discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >>> >>> I would say yes. >>> >>> -- >>> Massimo >>> http://meridio.blogspot.com >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 users now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? The version number will still be in the code base by then. If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to 2011 or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 package names On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > markus, > > i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" > but i go even conform with your mind. > > if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay > alienated for that, > > but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for > some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. > > but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, > if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" > and belive their own mind voice. > > 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version >> numbers into package names. >> In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for >> technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse >> developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? >> >> Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication >> might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. >> I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them >> to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs >> to which tapestry version. >> >> so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. >> >> my 2cents, >> Markus >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I agree. >> > >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >> >> To: Tapestry users >> >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >> >> > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit >> >> of >> >> > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >> >> >> >> I would say yes. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Massimo >> >> http://meridio.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > with regards > Sven Homburg > http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
markus, i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" but i go even conform with your mind. if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay alienated for that, but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" and belive their own mind voice. 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version > numbers into package names. > In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for > technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse > developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? > > Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication > might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. > I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them > to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs > to which tapestry version. > > so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. > > my 2cents, > Markus > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree. > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 > >> To: Tapestry users > >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > >> > >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > >> > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit > >> of > >> > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. > >> > >> I would say yes. > >> > >> -- > >> Massimo > >> http://meridio.blogspot.com > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- with regards Sven Homburg http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
This is a bit of a red herring. I can understand the reluctance from one perspective, but it might help to think of it not as tapestry v3, v4, and v5, but as first-web-framework, another-web-framework, a- different-web-framework. They're not the same, though they are similar in some architectural features. They're built on a different architectural basis. One may have evolved from the other conceptually, but the code-base did not evolve from the previous code=base, so it's absolutely appropriate to use a different package. Christian. On 19-May-08, at 17:20 , Markus Joschko wrote: Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree. -Original Message- From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I've been using Tapestry since v3. I have a Web suite (for lack of better terminology) with a T4 public app and a T5 management app, using Cayenne ROP to link between the two. Yet, I cannot think of a situation in which I would ever have what you're looking at below. I'm not saying it's not valid, but I need some concrete examples. Thanks, Kevin On 5/19/08 3:39 PM, "Estevam Henrique Portela Mota e Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, examples q 2 differences directory of the tapestry: > > (example) - 1 > --> Org.apache.tapestry > (sources) > --> org.apache.tapestry3 > (sources) > --> Org.apache.tapestry4 > (sources) > --> org.apache.tapestry5 > > (example) - 2 > --> Org.apache.tapestry > (sources) > --> org.apache.tapestry.v3 > (sources) > --> Org.apache.tapestry.v4 > (sources) > --> org.apache.tapestry.v5 > > > Then path of directory of tapestry is easy ... I chose example 2. > *+1 org.apache.tapestry.v5* > > If path differences, org.apache.tapestry + org.apache.tapestry5 are confused > separate version > * > Voting org.apache.tapestry.v5* > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I'm with Markus. Personally, I'm kind of shocked this is even under consideration. "Versioning" your package structure is a band-aid to the real problem, which is people not being able to control their class-loaders. If you deploy your Tapestry 4 app in one WAR and your Tapestry 5 app in another WAR then this should not be an issue. Per the portability section of the JavaEE spec, the classloaders of WARs should be entirely independent. In my mind, the only people this applies to are people who have deviated from the JavaEE spec, and I don't really see why we should make exceptions for them. People commonly have several differing versions of Log4J and XML parsers within their application server, there's no reason to make an exception for Tapestry. -1 for org.tapestry.apache.v5.0.12 -Original Message- From: Markus Joschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:20 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >> To: Tapestry users >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >> > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit >> of >> > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >> >> I would say yes. >> >> -- >> Massimo >> http://meridio.blogspot.com >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
You have a point, but: "You form a unique package name by first having (or belonging to an organization that has) an Internet domain name, such as sun.com. You then reverse this name, component by component, to obtain, in this example, com.sun, and use this as a prefix for your package names, using a convention developed within your organization to further administer package names." So using org.apache as a prefix takes care of that. Besides, I don't see any other project with the name Tapestry 5 joining the ASF... +1 on org.apache.tapestry5 -Filip On 2008-05-19 17:54, Ulrich Stärk wrote: According to java package naming conventions [1] the package name should reflect the domain of the developing organization which is org.apache.tapestry and not org.apache.tapestry5. These conventions are there for a purpose (in this case to ensure uniqueness of package names by using DNS names which are unique) and should be followed. +1 for org.apache.tapestry.v5 or similar Uli [1] http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.7 Howard Lewis Ship schrieb: A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web application (WAR). Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between the apps easier. Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I'm not sure that this would be considerably different from how things are generally done anyway. A class added in JDK5 is expected to work in 6+. Granted there's not a different package for each Java release, but I doubt it would cause as much confusion as you think. Actually, now that I think about it more, I wish Sun would use version numbers in its naming convention. Perhaps it's my COM background showing through, but it's exceedingly annoying how they just change interfaces. It is impossible to compile some SQL code on Java5 & Java6 due to interface changes in the same named interface. -- Kevin On 5/19/08 5:20 PM, "Markus Joschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version > numbers into package names. > In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for > technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse > developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? > > Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication > might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. > I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them > to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs > to which tapestry version. > > so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. > > my 2cents, > Markus > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree. >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >>> To: Tapestry users >>> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >>>> org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit >>> of >>>> discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >>> >>> I would say yes. >>> >>> -- >>> Massimo >>> http://meridio.blogspot.com >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version numbers into package names. In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to which tapestry version. so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. my 2cents, Markus On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >> To: Tapestry users >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >> > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit >> of >> > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >> >> I would say yes. >> >> -- >> Massimo >> http://meridio.blogspot.com >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I agree. > -Original Message- > From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit > of > > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. > > I would say yes. > > -- > Massimo > http://meridio.blogspot.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Hi, examples q 2 differences directory of the tapestry: (example) - 1 --> Org.apache.tapestry (sources) --> org.apache.tapestry3 (sources) --> Org.apache.tapestry4 (sources) --> org.apache.tapestry5 (example) - 2 --> Org.apache.tapestry (sources) --> org.apache.tapestry.v3 (sources) --> Org.apache.tapestry.v4 (sources) --> org.apache.tapestry.v5 Then path of directory of tapestry is easy ... I chose example 2. *+1 org.apache.tapestry.v5* If path differences, org.apache.tapestry + org.apache.tapestry5 are confused separate version * Voting org.apache.tapestry.v5* -- Regards, Estevam Henrique Portela Mota e Silva Handicapped Auditory = deaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmer Java and Tapestry Brazil - Fortaleza / CE On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, it's a short-hand for Tapestry5. So, what does tapestry.t5 gain you > that tapestry5 doesn't? > > -- > Kevin > > On May 19, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Darío Vasconcelos wrote: > > +1 on org.apache.tapestry.t5. T5 is a widely used acronym both in the >> mailing lists and many web posts. >> >> Dario. >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
But, it's a short-hand for Tapestry5. So, what does tapestry.t5 gain you that tapestry5 doesn't? -- Kevin On May 19, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Darío Vasconcelos wrote: +1 on org.apache.tapestry.t5. T5 is a widely used acronym both in the mailing lists and many web posts. Dario. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 on org.apache.tapestry.t5. T5 is a widely used acronym both in the mailing lists and many web posts. Dario. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Tomasz Dziurko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 on org.apache.tapestry5 > > -- > Tomasz Dziurko > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "Punctuality is the virtue of the bored." Evelyn Waugh.
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 on org.apache.tapestry5 -- Tomasz Dziurko - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
On May 19, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. +1 on this. Unfortunately, I was too busy getting married to participate in the discussion. Renaming across the board guarantees no future conflicts. It would make things marginally less confusing in IDEs when actively working on both T4 & T5 apps. -- Kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I think org.apache.tapestry5 or org.apache.tapestry.v5 (or similar) carries no or little difference in technical difficulty when it comes to refactoring existing T5 apps. For that reason, I personally will happily accept either way, as long as refactoring happens at the root level of package hierarchy. However, the point made by Urlich is a good one. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Ulrich Stärk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to java package naming conventions [1] the package name should > reflect the domain of the developing organization which is > org.apache.tapestry and not org.apache.tapestry5. These conventions are > there for a purpose (in this case to ensure uniqueness of package names by > using DNS names which are unique) and should be followed. > > +1 for org.apache.tapestry.v5 or similar > > Uli > > [1] > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.7 > > Howard Lewis Ship schrieb: >> >> A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry >> 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. >> >> What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames >> to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web >> application (WAR). >> >> Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. >> >> The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to >> org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the >> same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. >> >> I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the >> best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. >> >> I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between >> the apps easier. >> >> Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. >> >> The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename >> org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of >> discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
According to java package naming conventions [1] the package name should reflect the domain of the developing organization which is org.apache.tapestry and not org.apache.tapestry5. These conventions are there for a purpose (in this case to ensure uniqueness of package names by using DNS names which are unique) and should be followed. +1 for org.apache.tapestry.v5 or similar Uli [1] http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.7 Howard Lewis Ship schrieb: A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web application (WAR). Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between the apps easier. Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
For what its worth: +1: org.apache.tapestry5 On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my vote for "org.apache.tapestry5" > > 2008/5/19 Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry > > 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. > > > > What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames > > to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web > > application (WAR). > > > > Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. > > > > The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to > > org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the > > same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. > > > > I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the > > best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. > > > > I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between > > the apps easier. > > > > Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. > > > > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of > > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. > > > > -- > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > with regards > Sven Homburg > http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com >
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
my vote for "org.apache.tapestry5" 2008/5/19 Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry > 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. > > What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames > to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web > application (WAR). > > Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. > > The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to > org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the > same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. > > I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the > best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. > > I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between > the apps easier. > > Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. > > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- with regards Sven Homburg http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.com
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Tapestry group, is "org.apache.tapestry" more different version: v3, v4 and v5. Because v5 version is 5.0.4, 5.0.5, ... and 5.0.11. Then: org.apache.tapestry.v3, org.apache.tapestry.v4 and org.apache.tapestry.v5 I am speaking OPINION! -- Regards, Estevam Henrique Portela Mota e Silva Handicapped Auditory = deaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Programmer Java and Tapestry Brazil - Fortaleza / CE On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Kristian Marinkovic < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 org.apache.tapestry5... now or nevern! :) this will make it much easier > to add new > t5 pages to existing t4 applications. > > > > > "Thiago HP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 19.05.2008 17:10 > Bitte antworten an > "Tapestry users" > > > An > "Tapestry users" > Kopie > > Thema > Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > > > > > > > > +1 org.apache.tapestry5. Less margin for confusion, as the difference > between package names wouldn't be hust a 's' letter. The more > explicit, the better. > > Thiago > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 org.apache.tapestry5... now or nevern! :) this will make it much easier to add new t5 pages to existing t4 applications. "Thiago HP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19.05.2008 17:10 Bitte antworten an "Tapestry users" An "Tapestry users" Kopie Thema Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT +1 org.apache.tapestry5. Less margin for confusion, as the difference between package names wouldn't be hust a 's' letter. The more explicit, the better. Thiago - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
I'd rather suggest org.apache.tapestry.t5 or .v5. Entirely an aesthetic thing, but just putting it out there. Clearly there's no semantic difference. Christian. On 19-May-08, at 11:02 , Massimo Lusetti wrote: On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 org.apache.tapestry5. Less margin for confusion, as the difference between package names wouldn't be hust a 's' letter. The more explicit, the better. Thiago - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
+1 org.apache.tapestry5. Refactor once, have piece of mind forever. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry > 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT. > > What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames > to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web > application (WAR). > > Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5. > > The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to > org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the > same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4. > > I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the > best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5. > > I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between > the apps easier. > > Sorry for the disruption this late in the game. > > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename > org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of > discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. I would say yes. -- Massimo http://meridio.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
