Hi there,
I've been struggling whether to post this on the users' or the devs'
list, but I ended up asking here. Sorry if that's not appropriate.
So, from Tapestry 5.3, the underscore.js library is shipped. While I'm
quite happy about that fact, I'm getting issues with a JS library that
also s
As Phil McKinney of Killer Innovations podcast once said,
"Status Quo" is the innovation's #1 killer.
In order to keep innovating, sometimes you have to disregard the status quo.
When I started using Tablestry about one year ago, the only negative thing
I heard about it is that it's incompatible f
Hi all,
My 2 cents... Maybe 4 :)
> We need lots of *users*
> posting about Tapestry, not just the committers.
Tapestry is powerful but has a very hard learning curve that sometimes is too
much for the big audience and this is almost a proven fact.
Ways to attract the big audience via documenta
I would vote -1 on any sweeping, incompatible change. I would vote -1
on simply naming it Tapestry 6.0. I think the community will accept
minor hiccups, but change package names or other whole scale revisions
are not on the table. Yes, there's a ton of minor things I would fix
if I was starting fr
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:24:33 -0300, Mark wrote:
I can see the advantage of increasing the version number from a marketing
standpoint, but keep in mind that there is a downside when it comes to
books. You can write a book or article on Tapestry 5, and people will
still see it as being relevant
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:04:55 -0300, Igor Drobiazko
wrote:
C'mon. We don't need Tapestry 6. Tapestry 5.0 was release almost three
years ago. Since than we released 5.1, 5.2 and are just about to release
5.3.
Isn't it a proof that Tapestry team cares about framework's stability?
People who
I can see the advantage of increasing the version number from a marketing
standpoint, but keep in mind that there is a downside when it comes to
books. You can write a book or article on Tapestry 5, and people will still
see it as being relevant for 5.0, 5.4, etc. However, if you have a bunch of
b
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 04:58:32 -0300, Massimo Lusetti
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Bob Harner wrote:
Sadly, I suppose the compatibility issue will stay in peoples' minds
until, years from now, Tapestry 6 comes out and is fully compatible
with Tapestry 5.9. Or, hey, maybe 5.4 shou
The list already exists at http://tapestry.apache.org/applications.html
The link can be found at the bottom of the tapestry homepage.
/Sigbjørn Tvedt
On 11 October 2011 16:55, Jon Williams wrote:
> My 3 cents.
> A complete list of companies & sites that use Tapestry 5 would be very
> useful.
What is howard opinion? having a major version which is backward compatible
would be good as perception and js compatibility layer is a good target.
On Oct 12, 2011 11:05 AM, "Igor Drobiazko"
wrote:
> C'mon. We don't need Tapestry 6. Tapestry 5.0 was release almost three
> years
> ago. Since tha
Stability is passé. It's all about what's new and next. The package names are
minor issue. Hey that can be the incompatible part that everybody complains
about :). There should be a year release cycle for major versions. Apple is
very successful with that idea.
On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:04 AM, I
C'mon. We don't need Tapestry 6. Tapestry 5.0 was release almost three years
ago. Since than we released 5.1, 5.2 and are just about to release 5.3.
Isn't it a proof that Tapestry team cares about framework's stability?
People who are still bashing Tapestry for being backward incompatible are
loosi
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Bob Harner wrote:
> Sadly, I suppose the compatibility issue will stay in peoples' minds
> until, years from now, Tapestry 6 comes out and is fully compatible
> with Tapestry 5.9. Or, hey, maybe 5.4 should be named 6.0 just for
> that reason :-) ... kidding, of
13 matches
Mail list logo
