Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
+1 James. Let's all please calm down, we all want the same thing, to make Tapestry even better than it is, to keep improving it. The fact we all care so much is a good thing, the fact that we're all so committed to this can be an advantage. But let's be very objective about things. We don't all have to agree on everything. It's from the diversity of ideas and different points of view that the best options rise. And please, let's consider always all that a sum of a few very good software architects/developers and their commitment to a project for some years now have given us... in return of... not much. I think we are all very much appreciated for all the effort that is behind Tapestry. Let's keep that in mind and give the necessary time to let things mature and get more concrete. I'm sure all we say is taken in consideration. But we do have to try and focus on what matters. I am also worried like I stated before on the future of my Tap 4 (or 4.1 to be more precise) code. But I have to trust on people like Howard and Jesse that they know what they are doing. Lets wait for a more mature idea before we judge so harshly. Anyway, one post I think was practically ignored. Andreas took the initiative of making contacts and said... "I believe that with Alex, Petr and Geertjan's help we can create something useful and nice." These people are willing. Commiters like Jesse although can't be active participants in the work have offer support to the task (don't know how you can keep adding work to the pile and keep the response you do! Should write a book on time management and programming productivity! :-D). If we can just find a way to make this willingness possible... how about it, lets get focused on the problem. I have never seen before so much debate with ideas and several people committed in this subject (although I'm still quite new to this! :-)) so let's take advantage of the memento! Opinions on how we can do this? Options? What do you propose? Guess my previous layering idea was not so hot eh? Regards, On 8/31/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This conversation isn't heading in the right direction. As the Tapestry community, we need to focus on trying to make Tapestry better. Personal attacks against people that you don't agree with are not going to help the situation (not blaming either party here, but I've seen a similar thread in the past that got somewhat ugly). Yes, there is indeed somewhat of a disagreement here between the user community and the development community with respect to the future development of Tapestry. How about we focus on figuring out what we can do to remedy that disagreement and come to a compromise? -Original Message- From: Francis Amanfo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:28 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on" Yeah Jesse, I don't blame you. If I were the "Yes Sir" kind I would also say only Yes to my boss on anything without first analyzing myself if what he's doing makes sense. Fortunately I'm not that kind. I first think through my boss's request before going with him or her on issues. And in the environment that I live and work in, that is cherished very much. Better than following your boss blindly anywhere regardless of what. On the other hand, I may understand you. Being a commiter, I can imagine your sole goal may be to do cool things. But remember in the real world people are investing big bucks for results. To them, it's not about what Jesse finds cool and enjoy developing. They want results. Therefore in the real world if you tell people that during any major release they have to throw away their code base and invest another 100Ks' of dollars to be able to enjoy any new feature, all these because you had the appetite to do cool things, then to them you belong to the hobby group and no one would take your product seriously. I hope you would realize this fact someday. My .02 cent. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But you forget that I'm in Howard's camp as well...So please when you > mention facist regimes to include me as a leutenient at least. I would > make > the decision to support it again and again if given the chance. > > I mock you Mr. Amanfo. ~mock~ > > On 8/31/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning > > things which I know are of great concern to very many people. > > Having read the following post by you on July 28: > > > > "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward > > compatibility > > between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 > > is re
RE: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
This conversation isn't heading in the right direction. As the Tapestry community, we need to focus on trying to make Tapestry better. Personal attacks against people that you don't agree with are not going to help the situation (not blaming either party here, but I've seen a similar thread in the past that got somewhat ugly). Yes, there is indeed somewhat of a disagreement here between the user community and the development community with respect to the future development of Tapestry. How about we focus on figuring out what we can do to remedy that disagreement and come to a compromise? -Original Message- From: Francis Amanfo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:28 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on" Yeah Jesse, I don't blame you. If I were the "Yes Sir" kind I would also say only Yes to my boss on anything without first analyzing myself if what he's doing makes sense. Fortunately I'm not that kind. I first think through my boss's request before going with him or her on issues. And in the environment that I live and work in, that is cherished very much. Better than following your boss blindly anywhere regardless of what. On the other hand, I may understand you. Being a commiter, I can imagine your sole goal may be to do cool things. But remember in the real world people are investing big bucks for results. To them, it's not about what Jesse finds cool and enjoy developing. They want results. Therefore in the real world if you tell people that during any major release they have to throw away their code base and invest another 100Ks' of dollars to be able to enjoy any new feature, all these because you had the appetite to do cool things, then to them you belong to the hobby group and no one would take your product seriously. I hope you would realize this fact someday. My .02 cent. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But you forget that I'm in Howard's camp as well...So please when you > mention facist regimes to include me as a leutenient at least. I would > make > the decision to support it again and again if given the chance. > > I mock you Mr. Amanfo. ~mock~ > > On 8/31/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning > > things which I know are of great concern to very many people. > > Having read the following post by you on July 28: > > > > "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward > > compatibility > > between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 > > is renamed (e.g. 'Tapestries 1.0' or 'Lace 1.0' or sth else) then the > > expectation about backward compatibility will not be there?" > > > > I know you and I are not very far from each other in certain important > > issues. Being a Tapestry commiter, I wish you could use your influence > to > > discourage all these craziness going on with Tapestry of late. Namely, > > every > > major release equals radically re-inventing the wheel disregarding > > backward > > compatibility. And that decision made solely by one dictator who > wouldn't > > listen to his users and community. > > > > Regards, > > F > > > > > > On 8/31/06, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his > work > > > on > > > Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his > name > > > for > > > your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? > > > > > > Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to > > T3, > > > > > > while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? > > > > > > If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer > > constructive > > > criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has > > nothing > > > to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you > > consider > > > Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a > > > very > > > good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated > at > > > all > > > costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of > > > Tapestry! > > > > > > > > > Francis Amanfo wrote: > > > > > > > > Henrik, > > > > > > > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Yeah Jesse, I don't blame you. If I were the "Yes Sir" kind I would also say only Yes to my boss on anything without first analyzing myself if what he's doing makes sense. Fortunately I'm not that kind. I first think through my boss's request before going with him or her on issues. And in the environment that I live and work in, that is cherished very much. Better than following your boss blindly anywhere regardless of what. On the other hand, I may understand you. Being a commiter, I can imagine your sole goal may be to do cool things. But remember in the real world people are investing big bucks for results. To them, it's not about what Jesse finds cool and enjoy developing. They want results. Therefore in the real world if you tell people that during any major release they have to throw away their code base and invest another 100Ks' of dollars to be able to enjoy any new feature, all these because you had the appetite to do cool things, then to them you belong to the hobby group and no one would take your product seriously. I hope you would realize this fact someday. My .02 cent. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But you forget that I'm in Howard's camp as well...So please when you mention facist regimes to include me as a leutenient at least. I would make the decision to support it again and again if given the chance. I mock you Mr. Amanfo. ~mock~ On 8/31/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning > things which I know are of great concern to very many people. > Having read the following post by you on July 28: > > "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward > compatibility > between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 > is renamed (e.g. 'Tapestries 1.0' or 'Lace 1.0' or sth else) then the > expectation about backward compatibility will not be there?" > > I know you and I are not very far from each other in certain important > issues. Being a Tapestry commiter, I wish you could use your influence to > discourage all these craziness going on with Tapestry of late. Namely, > every > major release equals radically re-inventing the wheel disregarding > backward > compatibility. And that decision made solely by one dictator who wouldn't > listen to his users and community. > > Regards, > F > > > On 8/31/06, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his work > > on > > Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his name > > for > > your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? > > > > Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to > T3, > > > > while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? > > > > If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer > constructive > > criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has > nothing > > to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you > consider > > Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a > > very > > good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated at > > all > > costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of > > Tapestry! > > > > > > Francis Amanfo wrote: > > > > > > Henrik, > > > > > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got > > > Spindle for Tap 4 now. > > > The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With > > > Howard's > > > current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his > > > fanatic and radical design decisions. > > > > > > My .02 cent. > > > F > > > > > > On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is > > >> developed. > > >> The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. > > >> > > >> Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is > > the > > >> large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the > > >> goals > > >> for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle > while > > >> Tap5 > > >> is > > >> still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is > > >> achieved > > >> from > > >> the perspective of tooling. > > >> > > >> Henrik > > >> > > >> "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse > > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking > > >> about > > >> > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top > > of > > >> > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > >> > > > >> > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the > > current > > >> > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > >> > > > >> > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > > >> >
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
But you forget that I'm in Howard's camp as well...So please when you mention facist regimes to include me as a leutenient at least. I would make the decision to support it again and again if given the chance. I mock you Mr. Amanfo. ~mock~ On 8/31/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning things which I know are of great concern to very many people. Having read the following post by you on July 28: "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward compatibility between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 is renamed (e.g. 'Tapestries 1.0' or 'Lace 1.0' or sth else) then the expectation about backward compatibility will not be there?" I know you and I are not very far from each other in certain important issues. Being a Tapestry commiter, I wish you could use your influence to discourage all these craziness going on with Tapestry of late. Namely, every major release equals radically re-inventing the wheel disregarding backward compatibility. And that decision made solely by one dictator who wouldn't listen to his users and community. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his work > on > Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his name > for > your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? > > Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to T3, > > while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? > > If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer constructive > criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has nothing > to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you consider > Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a > very > good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated at > all > costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of > Tapestry! > > > Francis Amanfo wrote: > > > > Henrik, > > > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got > > Spindle for Tap 4 now. > > The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With > > Howard's > > current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his > > fanatic and radical design decisions. > > > > My .02 cent. > > F > > > > On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is > >> developed. > >> The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. > >> > >> Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is > the > >> large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the > >> goals > >> for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while > >> Tap5 > >> is > >> still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is > >> achieved > >> from > >> the perspective of tooling. > >> > >> Henrik > >> > >> "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking > >> about > >> > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top > of > >> > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > >> > > >> > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the > current > >> > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > >> > > >> > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > >> > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a > one > >> > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear > >> with > >> > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and > indeed > >> > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of > >> > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able > to > >> > find the time to do it. > >> > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live > on. > >> > > >> > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > >> > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as > >> > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete > rewrite > >> of > >> > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or > create > >> a > >> > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. > I > >> > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming > >> reality. > >> > > >> > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > >> > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > >> > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this > >> scenario > >> > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > >> > > >> > > >> > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any > >> other) > >> > scenario
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning things which I know are of great concern to very many people. Having read the following post by you on July 28: "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward compatibility between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 is renamed (e.g. 'Tapestries 1.0' or 'Lace 1.0' or sth else) then the expectation about backward compatibility will not be there?" I know you and I are not very far from each other in certain important issues. Being a Tapestry commiter, I wish you could use your influence to discourage all these craziness going on with Tapestry of late. Namely, every major release equals radically re-inventing the wheel disregarding backward compatibility. And that decision made solely by one dictator who wouldn't listen to his users and community. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his work on Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his name for your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to T3, while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer constructive criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has nothing to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you consider Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a very good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated at all costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of Tapestry! Francis Amanfo wrote: > > Henrik, > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got > Spindle for Tap 4 now. > The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With > Howard's > current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his > fanatic and radical design decisions. > > My .02 cent. > F > > On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is >> developed. >> The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. >> >> Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is the >> large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the >> goals >> for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while >> Tap5 >> is >> still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is >> achieved >> from >> the perspective of tooling. >> >> Henrik >> >> "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking >> about >> > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of >> > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". >> > >> > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current >> > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. >> > >> > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: >> > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one >> > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear >> with >> > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed >> > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of >> > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to >> > find the time to do it. >> > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. >> > >> > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: >> > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as >> > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite >> of >> > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create >> a >> > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I >> > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming >> reality. >> > >> > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: >> > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to >> > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this >> scenario >> > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. >> > >> > >> > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any >> other) >> > scenarios become reality. >> > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. >> I >> > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry >> IDE >> > support a reality. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Hugo >> > >> > >> > - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> --
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his work on Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his name for your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to T3, while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer constructive criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has nothing to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you consider Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a very good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated at all costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of Tapestry! Francis Amanfo wrote: > > Henrik, > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got > Spindle for Tap 4 now. > The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With > Howard's > current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his > fanatic and radical design decisions. > > My .02 cent. > F > > On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is >> developed. >> The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. >> >> Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is the >> large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the >> goals >> for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while >> Tap5 >> is >> still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is >> achieved >> from >> the perspective of tooling. >> >> Henrik >> >> "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking >> about >> > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of >> > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". >> > >> > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current >> > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. >> > >> > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: >> > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one >> > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear >> with >> > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed >> > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of >> > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to >> > find the time to do it. >> > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. >> > >> > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: >> > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as >> > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite >> of >> > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create >> a >> > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I >> > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming >> reality. >> > >> > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: >> > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to >> > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this >> scenario >> > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. >> > >> > >> > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any >> other) >> > scenarios become reality. >> > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. >> I >> > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry >> IDE >> > support a reality. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Hugo >> > >> > >> > - >> > 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] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/TapIDEA-future%2C-post-%22Time-to-move-on%22-tf2179878.html#a6071765 Sent from the Tapestry - User forum at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Well, after months of Tap4 programming eagerly waiting for Spindle for Tap4, and looking over my shoulder for TapIDEA that seemed closer and made me consider trying IntelliJ... all comes down! Nothing I can say regarding how important IDE support is that has not been said before. Kranga really said IMO the most important fact. We all have bills to pay. Tapestry is not what it is, has not the legions behind it from home made, helloworld like, small or even bug non profitable projects. Of course those exist, hell I'm working on one right now... but as for real world projects, as for Companies to back down Tapestry as their base framework, in order for Tapestry to get the acceptance it deserves... these compatibility breakers are really not helping. So talking of IDE suport, apparently we have always had the Tapestry code and the IDE code. The IDE code has to go deep into Tapestry internals in order to get what is needs, in order to do it's work. So a little flick of Tapestry and the IDE breaks. Geoff started to create an IDE agnostic core to a Tapestry plugin if I understood it correctly. Good, several tools could build on top of this common layer... but, still Tapestry had sort of it's back turned to these needs and projects and a little change in Tapestry, this plugin common core had to be refactored (here we at least have one fix solving all Tools specific IDE plugins working again). So what's wrong with this picture (IMHO), it needs more cooperation and more Abstraction Layers. We have obviously some of the best Java minds in the business in our community. Some of the best software architects available. Can't we think of a better way of using the resources available? The time we can spend individually in cooperation and not in different paths? Why can't we have for instance something like this: (Bare in mind I know nothing of the Tapestry internals and have not ever looked into any of the IDE tools source, just trying to help in theory to see if there a better way...) 1st layer: Tapestry commiters develop Tapestry and create rocket science that we all bow to each time it is released! :-D (I do at least!) 2nd Layer: An abstraction API witch is maintained through joined efforts of Tapestry commiters and IDE Tooling developers with the goal of making the bridge from the Tapestry techy-up-to-date and more volatile and the more consistent objectives of the IDE tools. The release of a new Tapestry would have to include this API working as an integrated part of itself. (with this I know I will get some violent remarks back!) - Tapestry would not make into, say Beta stage without a first working draft of this API. 3rd Layer: Something the likes of what Geoff constructed, the Tools Core API for Tapestry. Something that all IDE tools use and rely on for compatibility, something that shields them from most Tapestry changes in the other layers. This would be maintained by IDE tooling developers to have a common core to fit their needs. The more hardcore technical details and the major changes in Tap would normally not have impact on this layer, having being "translated" by the previous one. 4th Layer: Several IDE Tooling developers build specific IDE plugins on top of this previous layer, confiding in it's solid compatibility and abstraction of evolution beneath it I'm thinking out loud here but somehow I feel that cooperation is the key. We have so many willing by what it seems, but the way it is now it's difficult to set your heart to it. It looks like an impossible task because all the work that one does will be thrown away by the next Tap. I would really like to get a post here from Howard. The post Francis quoted out of Howard's blog I try to interpret has tooling is not a solution to lack of productivity, that if a framework is nor productive by nature, than it is not tooling that will solve this. I can not and I think Howard did not wish to convey the idea that even for a productive by nature framework like Tapestry is, it does not benefit from Tooling support. That the learning curve, the ease to pull new resources in little time of different technically expertise to a problematic project, that even an experienced developer can not magnify it's productivity with the help of a good tooling. By the shear quantity of posts that we get every time this issue gets mentioned on the list we can get a very good image of the general community position on this. A very good percentage miss tool support. The majority of the posts are saying that their productivity and real world acceptance of Tapestry would benefit from this, so I think is not a matter of it is needed, but a mater of how can the Tapestry community respond to this necessity with the time given by some very revered members of our community... and some other that with the right conditions would probably jump in! So pardon my long post and my apparent lack of humility in proposing those layers for this problem. I am only trying help us all to sli
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Henrik, Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got Spindle for Tap 4 now. The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With Howard's current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his fanatic and radical design decisions. My .02 cent. F On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is developed. The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is the large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the goals for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while Tap5 is still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is achieved from the perspective of tooling. Henrik "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to > find the time to do it. > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. > > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. > > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > > > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) > scenarios become reality. > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE > support a reality. > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > > - > 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: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Thanks Kranga for hiting the nail on the head. I however want to complete
your list of other exciting frameworks by citing GWT which is also a very
compelling framework.
Regards,
F
On 8/30/06, kranga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While one can disagree about the actual productivity increase offered by
an
IDE plugin, you can't deny that it is a major plus for new adoptions. That
said, I think Tapestry is in a unique situation with the incompatibility
between T3, 4 and 5. We've developed some large applications using T3 and
given the direction Tap is heading in, are definitely going to evaluate
other frameworks when we think of upgrading (high barrier to upgrade
implies
lower barrier to exit the platform). As it is, I have no incentive to
adopt
T4 when T5 is going to be different. By the time T5 matures, there will be
several other frameworks (including Wicket, Echo2 and perhaps even .NET
2.0)
that will be exciting alternatives. At the end of the day, even though I
am
a technologist at heart, technology exists because of business and
businesses don't care about how "cool" your internal architecture is, they
care about not spending millions to just upgrade to the latest without a
proportional increase in business functionality or decrease in cost of
operations neither of which are the case here IMHO.
Now before you respond, please note this is my personal experience. I'm
sure
others will beg to disagree. I am making this post for those in a similar
situation aware of this being a shared experience (I know people have
posted
of how they vouched for Tapestry only to look not so favorable a few years
down the road). With the current trend future compatibility will always be
broken because there will always be the next great thing and so the
temptation to make T6 incompatible. T3 for all its worth gives me enough
so
I can weigh options and evaluate trends with leisure.
T3: Judgement day!
- Original Message -
From: "andyhot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
> spindle-core (for Tap4) does this way in an IDE independent way.
>
> I was taking a look at it 4 months ago, and I was able to do exactly
this.
> For instance:
> public static void main(String[] args) {
>TapestryCore core = new TapestryCore(new TestLogger(),
>new LocalCoreListeners(), new LocalPreferenceSource());
>ITapestryProject project = new LocalProject();
>LocalBuild build = new LocalBuild(project);
>
>build.build(false, new HashMap());
>
>System.out.println(build.problemPersister);
>}
>
> All Local* classes where my implementations for the IDE-agnostic
> interfaces
> that spindle-core provides.
> When i first tried it, it did output a few non errors (i think it didn't
> understand default-value)
> so I don't know what (other) errors currently exist.
> I can give the latest version a try in a big project and see how it
goes.
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>> Agreed, but that could be done as build time 'check'
>> step. Something like JSP compiler task
>> http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/jspc.html
>>
>> I think it could be easier to create than full IDE
>> plugin and such core service might be a very good
>> foundation for people willing to build IDE specific UI
>> layer atop of it.
>>
>> --- D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I mostly agree with you that current tooling gets us
>>> pretty far, but there's
>>> a lot to be said for turning the most frequent
>>> "runtime" errors into
>>> "compile-time" errors, something that often requires
>>> special Tapestry
>>> awareness.
>>>
>>> On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>> no need to worry much about tools, because
>>>>
>>> existing
>>>
>>>> ones provide pretty good environment to work
>>>>
>>> within.
>>>
>>>> Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very
>>>> reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr
> Tapestry / Tacos developer
> Open Source / J2EE Consulting
>
>
> -
> 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: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Even better would be to have the plugins in question supported by a real bonafied eclipse project..One of the side effects of our loose association with dojo is that we have access to a lot more inside people in various projects...Including eclipse. On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is developed. The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is the large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the goals for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while Tap5 is still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is achieved from the perspective of tooling. Henrik "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to > find the time to do it. > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. > > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. > > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > > > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) > scenarios become reality. > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE > support a reality. > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > > - > 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] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is developed. The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is the large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the goals for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle while Tap5 is still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is achieved from the perspective of tooling. Henrik "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to > find the time to do it. > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. > > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. > > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > > > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) > scenarios become reality. > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE > support a reality. > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > > - > 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: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
While one can disagree about the actual productivity increase offered by an
IDE plugin, you can't deny that it is a major plus for new adoptions. That
said, I think Tapestry is in a unique situation with the incompatibility
between T3, 4 and 5. We've developed some large applications using T3 and
given the direction Tap is heading in, are definitely going to evaluate
other frameworks when we think of upgrading (high barrier to upgrade implies
lower barrier to exit the platform). As it is, I have no incentive to adopt
T4 when T5 is going to be different. By the time T5 matures, there will be
several other frameworks (including Wicket, Echo2 and perhaps even .NET 2.0)
that will be exciting alternatives. At the end of the day, even though I am
a technologist at heart, technology exists because of business and
businesses don't care about how "cool" your internal architecture is, they
care about not spending millions to just upgrade to the latest without a
proportional increase in business functionality or decrease in cost of
operations neither of which are the case here IMHO.
Now before you respond, please note this is my personal experience. I'm sure
others will beg to disagree. I am making this post for those in a similar
situation aware of this being a shared experience (I know people have posted
of how they vouched for Tapestry only to look not so favorable a few years
down the road). With the current trend future compatibility will always be
broken because there will always be the next great thing and so the
temptation to make T6 incompatible. T3 for all its worth gives me enough so
I can weigh options and evaluate trends with leisure.
T3: Judgement day!
- Original Message -
From: "andyhot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
spindle-core (for Tap4) does this way in an IDE independent way.
I was taking a look at it 4 months ago, and I was able to do exactly this.
For instance:
public static void main(String[] args) {
TapestryCore core = new TapestryCore(new TestLogger(),
new LocalCoreListeners(), new LocalPreferenceSource());
ITapestryProject project = new LocalProject();
LocalBuild build = new LocalBuild(project);
build.build(false, new HashMap());
System.out.println(build.problemPersister);
}
All Local* classes where my implementations for the IDE-agnostic
interfaces
that spindle-core provides.
When i first tried it, it did output a few non errors (i think it didn't
understand default-value)
so I don't know what (other) errors currently exist.
I can give the latest version a try in a big project and see how it goes.
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Agreed, but that could be done as build time 'check'
step. Something like JSP compiler task
http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/jspc.html
I think it could be easier to create than full IDE
plugin and such core service might be a very good
foundation for people willing to build IDE specific UI
layer atop of it.
--- D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I mostly agree with you that current tooling gets us
pretty far, but there's
a lot to be said for turning the most frequent
"runtime" errors into
"compile-time" errors, something that often requires
special Tapestry
awareness.
On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there
is
no need to worry much about tools, because
existing
ones provide pretty good environment to work
within.
Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very
reasonable to me.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr
Tapestry / Tacos developer
Open Source / J2EE Consulting
-
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: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Francis Amanfo - I admire your passion. Please don't hijack my name or situation to push your agenda. I feel as strongly as anyone else who is pro tooling but to use me as a basis for attack on Howard alienates many and does nothing to further your wishes. I feel it belittles my many years of hard effort. Geoff (hoping this makes it through moderation). PS. Since I have no time for Spindle what makes you think I have time for GWT? I haven't even looked at GWT since like May or June. On 8/29/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Guys, Allow me to quote from Howard's blog at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4110180&postID=115379415681750974 The quote goes: "As a reminder: Rails, the biggest success story I can name, has no tooling at all. Tooling is no replacement for productivity." First of all, I question his use of "biggest success story". In our industry, big success is measured by huge corporate adoption and not about who can hype better. Looking at the current levels of adoption, can you sincerely claim that Rails is a big success story? I would agree with you if your claim were based on hype levels. But anyway, that's outside the scope of this group. From such comments I can see why Tapestry would NEVER go mainstream. Howard just don't get it. Howard, how many people are using Rails in the industry? Ralatively speaking, very few. If your ambition is to only target such small numbers of adoption, then you are surely on the right path. But let me wake you up by saying that Rails is only at the beginning of a long journey. By the time it goes near to even the current level of adoption of Tapestry people would demand an IDE. And I know the Rails people would listen and deliver. They may be less stubborn. And to those of you who are planning to invest your precious time to develop an IDE for Tapestry, watch out. With his current attitude and opinion on IDEs' I will assure you that Howard won't take into consideration during work on another major release. By the time you're stabilizing your code base for Tap 5 IDE, Howard would come up with Tap 6 and again with another radical changes to the extent that the only way to go forward would be to throw away your IDE code and start afresh with a new development for an IDE that would work with Tap 6. And then Tap 7 would come. Fill in the rest for me. In summary, before you commit your energy and time to any IDE development, first convince Howard to change his mind on IDEs. Otherwise I would say, go do something else with your precious time, like Geoffery is having a great time now with GWT ;-). My .02 cents. F On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking > about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on > top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear > with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and > indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the > development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just > wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. > > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite > of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or > create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would > follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of > becoming reality. > > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this > scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > > > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any > other) scenarios become reality. > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. > I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry > IDE support a reality. > > Cheers, > > Hugo > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
spindle-core (for Tap4) does this way in an IDE independent way.
I was taking a look at it 4 months ago, and I was able to do exactly this.
For instance:
public static void main(String[] args) {
TapestryCore core = new TapestryCore(new TestLogger(),
new LocalCoreListeners(), new LocalPreferenceSource());
ITapestryProject project = new LocalProject();
LocalBuild build = new LocalBuild(project);
build.build(false, new HashMap());
System.out.println(build.problemPersister);
}
All Local* classes where my implementations for the IDE-agnostic interfaces
that spindle-core provides.
When i first tried it, it did output a few non errors (i think it didn't
understand default-value)
so I don't know what (other) errors currently exist.
I can give the latest version a try in a big project and see how it goes.
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> Agreed, but that could be done as build time 'check'
> step. Something like JSP compiler task
> http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/jspc.html
>
> I think it could be easier to create than full IDE
> plugin and such core service might be a very good
> foundation for people willing to build IDE specific UI
> layer atop of it.
>
> --- D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> I mostly agree with you that current tooling gets us
>> pretty far, but there's
>> a lot to be said for turning the most frequent
>> "runtime" errors into
>> "compile-time" errors, something that often requires
>> special Tapestry
>> awareness.
>>
>> On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there
>>>
>> is
>>
>>> no need to worry much about tools, because
>>>
>> existing
>>
>>> ones provide pretty good environment to work
>>>
>> within.
>>
>>> Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very
>>> reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr
Tapestry / Tacos developer
Open Source / J2EE Consulting
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Konstantin, Not meant for you, meant for Francis Amanfo, his reply to you was: Konstantin, I don't agree completely with you on his one. I must say that I do my Tapestry development in Eclipse without Tapestry IDE and I'm happy. However I know a lot of junior to middle level developers who think they would be more productive with a Tap IDE. So it's not only a matter of opinion but expertise. My .02 cent. F And my reply to him, through you, was switch to vi. I used vi for years to develop C++ and I use if for Java Assembler, but I wouldn't dream of developing Java in it. That is how I feel about Spindle. Sure I could, but I could also tie my hands behind my back or turn off my monitor. Eventually, I would get the job done, but it is faster with Spindle. Mark -Original Message- From: Konstantin Ignatyev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 8/29/2006 3:32 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: RE: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on" Huh? What are you talking about? --- Mark Stang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, if you are that good, switch to a plain vanilla > version of vi and let's see how "good" you are... > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Agreed, but that could be done as build time 'check' step. Something like JSP compiler task http://ant.apache.org/manual/OptionalTasks/jspc.html I think it could be easier to create than full IDE plugin and such core service might be a very good foundation for people willing to build IDE specific UI layer atop of it. --- D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mostly agree with you that current tooling gets us > pretty far, but there's > a lot to be said for turning the most frequent > "runtime" errors into > "compile-time" errors, something that often requires > special Tapestry > awareness. > > On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there > is > > no need to worry much about tools, because > existing > > ones provide pretty good environment to work > within. > > Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very > > reasonable to me. > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
I mostly agree with you that current tooling gets us pretty far, but there's a lot to be said for turning the most frequent "runtime" errors into "compile-time" errors, something that often requires special Tapestry awareness. On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there is no need to worry much about tools, because existing ones provide pretty good environment to work within. Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very reasonable to me.
RE: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Huh? What are you talking about? --- Mark Stang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, if you are that good, switch to a plain vanilla > version of vi and let's see how "good" you are... > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Hey, if you are that good, switch to a plain vanilla version of vi and let's see how "good" you are... -Original Message- From: Konstantin Ignatyev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 8/29/2006 3:01 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on" The keyword here 'think'. That is very common, but what we actually seek is not ZZZ-IDE or plugin, but features like: - code navigation; - code completion; - syntax checks and coloring; That is about it. Tool like IntelliJ pretty much takes care of all those things without any Tapestry specific plugins. DW takes care of HTML. As for expertize level: there are certain developers which are not able to produce anything good no matter which tools they have in hands and reasonable IDEs like VisualStudio which do not help much because platform API are so insane and far from 'literate' programming style http://www.literateprogramming.com/ RoR hype indicate that people are willing to compromise on tools in favor of sane defaults and APIs. My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there is no need to worry much about tools, because existing ones provide pretty good environment to work within. Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very reasonable to me. --- Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However > I know a lot of junior to middle level developers > who think they would be > more productive with a Tap IDE. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
The keyword here 'think'. That is very common, but what we actually seek is not ZZZ-IDE or plugin, but features like: - code navigation; - code completion; - syntax checks and coloring; That is about it. Tool like IntelliJ pretty much takes care of all those things without any Tapestry specific plugins. DW takes care of HTML. As for expertize level: there are certain developers which are not able to produce anything good no matter which tools they have in hands and reasonable IDEs like VisualStudio which do not help much because platform API are so insane and far from 'literate' programming style http://www.literateprogramming.com/ RoR hype indicate that people are willing to compromise on tools in favor of sane defaults and APIs. My point is that in case of Tapestry/Wicket there is no need to worry much about tools, because existing ones provide pretty good environment to work within. Therefore focus on APIs and conventions seems very reasonable to me. --- Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However > I know a lot of junior to middle level developers > who think they would be > more productive with a Tap IDE. > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Konstantin, I don't agree completely with you on his one. I must say that I do my Tapestry development in Eclipse without Tapestry IDE and I'm happy. However I know a lot of junior to middle level developers who think they would be more productive with a Tap IDE. So it's not only a matter of opinion but expertise. My .02 cent. F On 8/29/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all matter of opinion but I would say that IDE like IntelliJ + DreamWeaver out of box provide enought features to be productive with Tapestry. Certain Tapestry specific features would be nice to have but they are not critical IMO. --- Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, > > Allow me to quote from Howard's blog at > http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4110180&postID=115379415681750974 > The quote goes: > "As a reminder: Rails, the biggest success story I > can name, has no tooling > at all. Tooling is no replacement for productivity." > . > > IDEs' I will assure you that Howard won't take into > consideration during > work on another major release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
It is all matter of opinion but I would say that IDE like IntelliJ + DreamWeaver out of box provide enought features to be productive with Tapestry. Certain Tapestry specific features would be nice to have but they are not critical IMO. --- Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, > > Allow me to quote from Howard's blog at > http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4110180&postID=115379415681750974 > The quote goes: > "As a reminder: Rails, the biggest success story I > can name, has no tooling > at all. Tooling is no replacement for productivity." > . > > IDEs' I will assure you that Howard won't take into > consideration during > work on another major release. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Guys, Allow me to quote from Howard's blog at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4110180&postID=115379415681750974 The quote goes: "As a reminder: Rails, the biggest success story I can name, has no tooling at all. Tooling is no replacement for productivity." First of all, I question his use of "biggest success story". In our industry, big success is measured by huge corporate adoption and not about who can hype better. Looking at the current levels of adoption, can you sincerely claim that Rails is a big success story? I would agree with you if your claim were based on hype levels. But anyway, that's outside the scope of this group. From such comments I can see why Tapestry would NEVER go mainstream. Howard just don't get it. Howard, how many people are using Rails in the industry? Ralatively speaking, very few. If your ambition is to only target such small numbers of adoption, then you are surely on the right path. But let me wake you up by saying that Rails is only at the beginning of a long journey. By the time it goes near to even the current level of adoption of Tapestry people would demand an IDE. And I know the Rails people would listen and deliver. They may be less stubborn. And to those of you who are planning to invest your precious time to develop an IDE for Tapestry, watch out. With his current attitude and opinion on IDEs' I will assure you that Howard won't take into consideration during work on another major release. By the time you're stabilizing your code base for Tap 5 IDE, Howard would come up with Tap 6 and again with another radical changes to the extent that the only way to go forward would be to throw away your IDE code and start afresh with a new development for an IDE that would work with Tap 6. And then Tap 7 would come. Fill in the rest for me. In summary, before you commit your energy and time to any IDE development, first convince Howard to change his mind on IDEs. Otherwise I would say, go do something else with your precious time, like Geoffery is having a great time now with GWT ;-). My .02 cents. F On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) scenarios become reality. I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE support a reality. Cheers, Hugo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Those are great points. .. I should say that while I don't have enough time to work on a plugin project, I will certainly provide "special" support in the form of bug fixes/answers to question to anyone building any tapestry related projects that I think the community/developers could benefit from.. On 8/29/06, Patrick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those simple features you mention are not so difficult to implement and i > could easily provide those in TapIDEA without Spindle. Still, when i think > of Tapestry ÎDE support i think of something much more complete and feature > rich like what Spindle for T3 provides. It was and is TapIDEA's goal to > provide such functionality to IntelliJ users. > Don't let the best be the enemy of the good. What I mean by that is if someone just starts creating a new Tapestry plugin that just does a few simple things with clearly written code (comments!). It makes it possible for others to add their own desired features. I, for one, would like to learn a little bit about how eclipse plugins work by helping out. But I don't have the time to learn the plugin architecture, rewrite spindle *and* do my main work. I would also suggest that someone more knowledgeable post what areas of Tapestry are *least* likely to change in T5 and what areas Howard plans on sucking into the main code base. For example, my earlier question about ognl's use in T5. Clearly there is no need for the plugin to help with ognl expressions as ognl use is going to be deprecated. Another example is specification xml file parsing. I don't use the XML files at all now that I have the annotation mechanism. Once we know what areas are going to last into T5, then we can chose a small set of plugin features that are likely to be useful in both T4.1 and T5 -Pat - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
--- Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Those simple features you mention are not so difficult to implement and i > could easily provide those in TapIDEA without Spindle. Still, when i think > of Tapestry ÎDE support i think of something much more complete and feature > rich like what Spindle for T3 provides. It was and is TapIDEA's goal to > provide such functionality to IntelliJ users. > Don't let the best be the enemy of the good. What I mean by that is if someone just starts creating a new Tapestry plugin that just does a few simple things with clearly written code (comments!). It makes it possible for others to add their own desired features. I, for one, would like to learn a little bit about how eclipse plugins work by helping out. But I don't have the time to learn the plugin architecture, rewrite spindle *and* do my main work. I would also suggest that someone more knowledgeable post what areas of Tapestry are *least* likely to change in T5 and what areas Howard plans on sucking into the main code base. For example, my earlier question about ognl's use in T5. Clearly there is no need for the plugin to help with ognl expressions as ognl use is going to be deprecated. Another example is specification xml file parsing. I don't use the XML files at all now that I have the annotation mechanism. Once we know what areas are going to last into T5, then we can chose a small set of plugin features that are likely to be useful in both T4.1 and T5 -Pat - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Those simple features you mention are not so difficult to implement and i could easily provide those in TapIDEA without Spindle. Still, when i think of Tapestry ÎDE support i think of something much more complete and feature rich like what Spindle for T3 provides. It was and is TapIDEA's goal to provide such functionality to IntelliJ users. On 8/29/06, Henri Dupre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking > about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on > top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear > with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and > indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the > development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just > wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. I looked one day at Spindle source code and I don't know about its latest version but the spindle T3 is wicked. There is some very complex XML parsing code that seems to be used for reporting errors to eclipse. One thing about an IDE plugin is that I would be more than happy with a very basic plugin: - I can really live if the plugin doesn't do a complete check of the app. Even if the component parameters are not checked I'm fine... - What I like the most with spindle is the navigator on the right that shows all the components used in the page - basic html checking (and ognl friendly...) would be good to have. This is where spindle helps us the most. Eclipse web project has a very decent html editor... Maybe if I find spare cycles, I'll look to see how difficult it would be to add some basic tapestry abilities into the html editor. The other point about a plugin is to have an idea about its expectations. What are everyone's expectations on an IDE plugin? -- Henri Dupre Actualis Center
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. I looked one day at Spindle source code and I don't know about its latest version but the spindle T3 is wicked. There is some very complex XML parsing code that seems to be used for reporting errors to eclipse. One thing about an IDE plugin is that I would be more than happy with a very basic plugin: - I can really live if the plugin doesn't do a complete check of the app. Even if the component parameters are not checked I'm fine... - What I like the most with spindle is the navigator on the right that shows all the components used in the page - basic html checking (and ognl friendly...) would be good to have. This is where spindle helps us the most. Eclipse web project has a very decent html editor... Maybe if I find spare cycles, I'll look to see how difficult it would be to add some basic tapestry abilities into the html editor. The other point about a plugin is to have an idea about its expectations. What are everyone's expectations on an IDE plugin? -- Henri Dupre Actualis Center
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
Jesse has no such superhuman abilities. Or...can't fit anymore information into his brain. On 8/28/06, andyhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're right and ... here's the rest of the story I've been trying to reach Alex Kochnev, the author of http://akochnev.blogspot.com/2006/08/tapestry-netbeans-plugin.html but since i couldn't wait for his response, I went ahead and created something along the lines that he describes. I made use of the works of http://blogs.sun.com/geertjan and Petr Pisl https://nbwicketsupport.dev.java.net/ . Seeing how it was mostly a copy-paste process I went ahead and proposed ( see comments of http://blogs.sun.com/geertjan/entry/click_wicket_and_the_world ) the creation of a generic module for such web frameworks. Both of them seem to be interested in something like this, and they announced https://nbwicketsupport.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectForumMessageView?forumID=2221&messageID=15065 I also went ahead and applied for https://nbtapestrysupport.dev.java.net/ I believe that with Alex, Petr and Geertjan's help we can create something useful and nice. Dwi Ardi Irawan wrote: > I think someone has started working on a module that integrates the > Tapestry web framework in NetBeans > http://www.netbeans.info/newsletter/story.php?id=719 > > D&J Gredler wrote: >> If I remember correctly, one of the benefits of the move to maven2 was >> supposed to be the creation of Tapestry sub-projects with their own >> commiters, where both contributors and components could be nurtured. >> >> What about a tapestry-ide subproject that Hugo and some other intrepid >> volunteers could get commit rights to, without getting commit rights to >> core/contrib/etc? This sub-project could contain core IDE support, with >> perhaps subprojects (tapestry-idea, tapestry-eclipse or whatever) for >> thin >> adaptors to IDEA, Eclipse, etc. >> >> My 2¢ is that Tapestry would benefit from official IDE tooling with a >> team >> behind it (rather than one-person efforts), and this certainly won't >> happen >> anytime soon if left to the current core developers (though Jesse >> does seem >> to possess superhuman time management abilities). >> >> Just an idea... feel free to shoot it down. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking >>> about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on >>> top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". >>> >>> There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current >>> situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. >>> >>> Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: >>> I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one >>> man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear >>> with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and >>> indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the >>> development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just >>> wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. >>> Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. >>> >>> Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: >>> Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as >>> pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite >>> of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or >>> create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would >>> follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of >>> becoming reality. >>> >>> Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: >>> Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to >>> continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this >>> scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. >>> >>> >>> The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any >>> other) scenarios become reality. >>> I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. >>> I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry >>> IDE support a reality. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Hugo >>> >>> >>> - >>> 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] > > -- Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr Tapestry / Tacos developer Open Source / J2EE Consulting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tap
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
You're right and ... here's the rest of the story I've been trying to reach Alex Kochnev, the author of http://akochnev.blogspot.com/2006/08/tapestry-netbeans-plugin.html but since i couldn't wait for his response, I went ahead and created something along the lines that he describes. I made use of the works of http://blogs.sun.com/geertjan and Petr Pisl https://nbwicketsupport.dev.java.net/ . Seeing how it was mostly a copy-paste process I went ahead and proposed ( see comments of http://blogs.sun.com/geertjan/entry/click_wicket_and_the_world ) the creation of a generic module for such web frameworks. Both of them seem to be interested in something like this, and they announced https://nbwicketsupport.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectForumMessageView?forumID=2221&messageID=15065 I also went ahead and applied for https://nbtapestrysupport.dev.java.net/ I believe that with Alex, Petr and Geertjan's help we can create something useful and nice. Dwi Ardi Irawan wrote: > I think someone has started working on a module that integrates the > Tapestry web framework in NetBeans > http://www.netbeans.info/newsletter/story.php?id=719 > > D&J Gredler wrote: >> If I remember correctly, one of the benefits of the move to maven2 was >> supposed to be the creation of Tapestry sub-projects with their own >> commiters, where both contributors and components could be nurtured. >> >> What about a tapestry-ide subproject that Hugo and some other intrepid >> volunteers could get commit rights to, without getting commit rights to >> core/contrib/etc? This sub-project could contain core IDE support, with >> perhaps subprojects (tapestry-idea, tapestry-eclipse or whatever) for >> thin >> adaptors to IDEA, Eclipse, etc. >> >> My 2¢ is that Tapestry would benefit from official IDE tooling with a >> team >> behind it (rather than one-person efforts), and this certainly won't >> happen >> anytime soon if left to the current core developers (though Jesse >> does seem >> to possess superhuman time management abilities). >> >> Just an idea... feel free to shoot it down. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking >>> about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on >>> top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". >>> >>> There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current >>> situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. >>> >>> Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: >>> I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one >>> man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear >>> with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and >>> indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the >>> development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just >>> wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. >>> Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. >>> >>> Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: >>> Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as >>> pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite >>> of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or >>> create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would >>> follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of >>> becoming reality. >>> >>> Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: >>> Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to >>> continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this >>> scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. >>> >>> >>> The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any >>> other) scenarios become reality. >>> I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. >>> I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry >>> IDE support a reality. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Hugo >>> >>> >>> - >>> 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] > > -- Andreas Andreou - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://andyhot.di.uoa.gr Tapestry / Tacos developer Open Source / J2EE Consulting - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
I think someone has started working on a module that integrates the Tapestry web framework in NetBeans http://www.netbeans.info/newsletter/story.php?id=719 D&J Gredler wrote: If I remember correctly, one of the benefits of the move to maven2 was supposed to be the creation of Tapestry sub-projects with their own commiters, where both contributors and components could be nurtured. What about a tapestry-ide subproject that Hugo and some other intrepid volunteers could get commit rights to, without getting commit rights to core/contrib/etc? This sub-project could contain core IDE support, with perhaps subprojects (tapestry-idea, tapestry-eclipse or whatever) for thin adaptors to IDEA, Eclipse, etc. My 2¢ is that Tapestry would benefit from official IDE tooling with a team behind it (rather than one-person efforts), and this certainly won't happen anytime soon if left to the current core developers (though Jesse does seem to possess superhuman time management abilities). Just an idea... feel free to shoot it down. Daniel On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) scenarios become reality. I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE support a reality. Cheers, Hugo - 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: TapIDEA future, post "Time to move on"
If I remember correctly, one of the benefits of the move to maven2 was supposed to be the creation of Tapestry sub-projects with their own commiters, where both contributors and components could be nurtured. What about a tapestry-ide subproject that Hugo and some other intrepid volunteers could get commit rights to, without getting commit rights to core/contrib/etc? This sub-project could contain core IDE support, with perhaps subprojects (tapestry-idea, tapestry-eclipse or whatever) for thin adaptors to IDEA, Eclipse, etc. My 2¢ is that Tapestry would benefit from official IDE tooling with a team behind it (rather than one-person efforts), and this certainly won't happen anytime soon if left to the current core developers (though Jesse does seem to possess superhuman time management abilities). Just an idea... feel free to shoot it down. Daniel On 8/28/06, Hugo Palma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking about the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top of Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the current situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a one man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into gear with the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and indeed i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development of TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able to find the time to do it. Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live on. Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff as pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete rewrite of Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or create a whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would follow. I find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming reality. Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this scenario both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any other) scenarios become reality. I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about this. I hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making Tapestry IDE support a reality. Cheers, Hugo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
