I agree but thought I was in the minority.
The extra interfaces have increased the complexity and require third
parties to know about the nuances of the implementation. Adding methods to
the public API may cause compilation errors (in rare cases) but at least
it's clear.
Anyone else have an opini
JMHO, maintaining backwards compatibility in this case isn't worth the
added complexity. Making support libraries compatible requires just
compiling them against the new version and there are many other, more
drastic changes in 5.4 that require at least a re-compilation and in many
cases, changes i
Hello
with tapestry 5.3.4 and java 7 with use of
org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.services.ClassFactory
private Class createProxyClass(ServiceResources resources) {
Class serviceInterface = resources.getServiceInterface();
ClassFab cf = classFactory.newClass(serviceInterface);
ok, just committed with Binding2 / PropertyConduit2 keeping backwards
compatibility in tact.
On 19 May 2014 19:02, Lance Java wrote:
> I can implement like that if others agree. I just hate instanceof littered
> around the place.
>
> It also brings up the possibility of third parties wrapping a
I can implement like that if others agree. I just hate instanceof littered
around the place.
It also brings up the possibility of third parties wrapping a Binding2 with
a Binding and losing functionality. I'd prefer a compilation error myself.
On 19 May 2014 17:46, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo"
On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:04:55 -0300, Lance Java
wrote:
I guess my question is, is it worth adding / maintaining Binding2 and
PropertyConduit2 and all the type checking / adapting.
Or are we happy to add the methods to the public API given its a no
brainer to implement getGenericType() to re
I guess my question is, is it worth adding / maintaining Binding2 and
PropertyConduit2 and all the type checking / adapting.
Or are we happy to add the methods to the public API given its a no brainer
to implement getGenericType() to return getType()
On 19 May 2014 15:17, "Thiago H de Paula Figue
On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:27:21 -0300, Lance Java
wrote:
I don't think anyone will be implementing their own ComponentResources or
PropertyConduit so I think those changes are fin.
Agreed with ComponentResources, not about PropertyConduit, but I still
think that wouldn't be a problem, specia
Kristian Mairnkovic: +1 (non-binding)
i don't see any reason not to raise the minimun requirement to 1.6. i've to
admit most of my Tapestry apps run on Java 1.6. anyways.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bob Harner wrote:
> Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
> On May 18, 2014 1:05 PM, "Jochen Kemnad
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder tapestry-site-production
while building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/tapestry-site-production/builds/664
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-cms-slave
Build Reason:
Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
On May 18, 2014 10:10 AM, "Taha Siddiqi" wrote:
> Taha Hafeez: +1 (non-binding)
>
> On May 18, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Kristian Marinkovic wrote:
>
> > Kristian Marinkovic: +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:48 AM, françois facon >wrote:
> >
> >> Franç
Bob Harner: +1 (non-binding)
On May 18, 2014 1:05 PM, "Jochen Kemnade" wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder tapestry-site-production
while building ASF Buildbot.
Full details are available at:
http://ci.apache.org/builders/tapestry-site-production/builds/663
Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/
Buildslave for this Build: bb-cms-slave
Build Reason: Th
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jochen Kemnade wrote:
There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While requiring Java 6 would not bring us much benefits, there might be
> some libraries that
Lance Semmens +0 (non-binding)
I can't really see much benefit but I won't stand in the way.
On 18 May 2014 18:05, "Jochen Kemnade" wrote:
> There have been discussions whether we want to keep compatibility with
> Java 5 for the upcoming 5.4 release.
> Java 5 is EOSL since October 2009.
> While
Massimo Lusetti: +1 (binding)
Great to see 5.4 progressing.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> I've created and uploaded a release of Tapestry 5.4-beta-6, ready to be
> voted upon.
>
> The source and source downloads are uploaded to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hlshi
16 matches
Mail list logo
