Right now, I'm thinking of a new annotation that would allow you to
map a component field directly to a Session attribute; the session
attribute keys used by a T3 or T4 app are very predictable and this
would allow the T5 app to share data where appropriate without the
fuss of using the Session API
Howard Lewis Ship schrieb:
...
I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the
best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5.
I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between
the apps easier.
The discussion about the package name got very long, but nobody was
And the commits are there, so it's already been done. I think we can
wrap up the thread.
Christian.
On 20-May-08, at 14:45 , Kevin Menard wrote:
Par for the course in a beta framework. I'll grant you that this is
a much larger change than is typical for a beta, but it's a now-or-
never s
Par for the course in a beta framework. I'll grant you that this is a
much larger change than is typical for a beta, but it's a now-or-never
situation, too. I don't think releasing T5 and then changing all the
packages around would be prudent.
--
Kevin
On May 20, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Renat
Hi
-1 to t5
-1 to tapestry5
IMHO in release candidate it is not acceptable! Release the 5.0 and
then change it. Think about existing T5 applications.
--
Best regards,
Renat Zubairov
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 for org.apache.tapestry5
Tapestry 5 is fundamentally separate as a product from tapestry 4.
tapestry.v5 gains nothing extra. V6 is far off and marketing-wise it would
not be much of an issue to keep the package name at that time (under the
hood item, post sale).
Szemere
.apache.tapestry.mignon
> >> org.apache.tapestry.ribeye
> >> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip
> >> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse
> >>
> >> you get the drift :)
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message - From: "Christian Edwa
he.tapestry.ribeye
>> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip
>> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse
>>
>> you get the drift :)
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL
>> PROTECTED]
>> >
>> To: &q
Renaming T3 and T4 packages is not an option. T5 is still pre-
release, so it is an option.
--
Kevin
On May 20, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Marcus wrote:
if T5 willBeCompatibleWith T(5+n)
andT5 shouldWorkWith T(5-n)
then rename T(5-n) annotations packages;
else if T5 willBeNotCo
ot;Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really
"versions" in the typical sense. They'
ay, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really "versions"
in the typical sense. They're different architectural bases. You might
call them three different web frameworks entirely. So there s
They're nightly for a reason. If you've been using nightlies you've done
so at your own risk, and if you require preserving your app against a
certain nightly, the deploy with the exact nightly you need.
Moritz Gmelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> would it be possible to do a 5.0.12 release and then do this re
Hi,
would it be possible to do a 5.0.12 release and then do this renaming?
I fear to use the nightly build because of such issues.
Thanks
Moritz
Am 20.05.2008 um 08:06 schrieb Jun Tsai:
org.apache.tapestry.v5
+1
-
org.apache.tapestry.v5
+1
if T5 willBeCompatibleWith T(5+n)
andT5 shouldWorkWith T(5-n)
then rename T(5-n) annotations packages;
else if T5 willBeNotCompatibleWith T(5+n)
then rename all Tapestry packages;
Marcus
r v5.
my 2cents,
Markus
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
On Mo
nd XML parsers
> within their application server, there's no reason to make an exception
> for Tapestry.
>
> -1 for org.tapestry.apache.v5.0.12
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Markus Joschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:20 PM
> To: Tapes
pestry5 or v5.
>>
>> my 2cents,
>> Markus
>>
>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I agree.
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PR
> my 2cents,
> Markus
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
> >
ich tapestry version.
so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5.
my 2cents,
Markus
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Inst
I've been using Tapestry since v3. I have a Web suite (for lack of better
terminology) with a T4 public app and a T5 management app, using Cayenne ROP
to link between the two. Yet, I cannot think of a situation in which I
would ever have what you're looking at below. I'm not saying it's not
vali
OTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:20 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version
numbers into package names.
In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for
technical but s
You have a point, but:
"You form a unique package name by first having (or belonging to an
organization that has) an Internet domain name, such as sun.com. You
then reverse this name, component by component, to obtain, in this
example, com.sun, and use this as a prefix for your package names,
Andy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree.
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
>>> To: Tapestry users
>>> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNA
so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5.
my 2cents,
Markus
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
>> To: Tapestry user
I agree.
> -Original Message-
> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT
>
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Hi, examples q 2 differences directory of the tapestry:
(example) - 1
--> Org.apache.tapestry
(sources)
--> org.apache.tapestry3
(sources)
--> Org.apache.tapestry4
(sources)
--> org.apache.tapestry5
(example) - 2
--> Org.apache.tapestry
(sources)
--> org.apache.tapestry.v3
But, it's a short-hand for Tapestry5. So, what does tapestry.t5 gain
you that tapestry5 doesn't?
--
Kevin
On May 19, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Darío Vasconcelos wrote:
+1 on org.apache.tapestry.t5. T5 is a widely used acronym both in the
mailing lists and many web posts.
Dario.
+1 on org.apache.tapestry.t5. T5 is a widely used acronym both in the
mailing lists and many web posts.
Dario.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Tomasz Dziurko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 on org.apache.tapestry5
>
> --
> Tomasz Dziurko
>
>
+1 on org.apache.tapestry5
--
Tomasz Dziurko
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 19, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename
org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of
discussion back on forth among the developers on this one.
+1 on this. Unfortunately, I was too busy
I think org.apache.tapestry5 or org.apache.tapestry.v5 (or similar)
carries no or little difference in technical difficulty when it comes
to refactoring existing T5 apps. For that reason, I personally will
happily accept either way, as long as refactoring happens at the root
level of package hierar
According to java package naming conventions [1] the package name should
reflect the domain of the developing organization which is
org.apache.tapestry and not org.apache.tapestry5. These conventions are
there for a purpose (in this case to ensure uniqueness of package names
by using DNS names
For what its worth:
+1: org.apache.tapestry5
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> my vote for "org.apache.tapestry5"
>
> 2008/5/19 Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry
> > 5.0.12-SNAPSH
my vote for "org.apache.tapestry5"
2008/5/19 Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry
> 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT.
>
> What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames
> to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in
add new
> t5 pages to existing t4 applications.
>
>
>
>
> "Thiago HP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 19.05.2008 17:10
> Bitte antworten an
> "Tapestry users"
>
>
> An
> "Tapestry users"
> Kopie
>
> Thema
> Re: Insta
+1 org.apache.tapestry5... now or nevern! :) this will make it much easier
to add new
t5 pages to existing t4 applications.
"Thiago HP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19.05.2008 17:10
Bitte antworten an
"Tapestry users"
An
"Tapestry users"
Kopie
Thema
Re: Ins
I'd rather suggest org.apache.tapestry.t5 or .v5. Entirely an
aesthetic thing, but just putting it out there. Clearly there's no
semantic difference.
Christian.
On 19-May-08, at 11:02 , Massimo Lusetti wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 org.apache.tapestry5. Less margin for confusion, as the difference
between package names wouldn't be hust a 's' letter. The more
explicit, the better.
Thiago
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
+1 org.apache.tapestry5. Refactor once, have piece of mind forever.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry
> 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT.
>
> What's going on is a limited number of interface and package re
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename
> org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of
> discussion back on forth among the developers on this one.
I would say yes.
A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT.
What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames
to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web
application (WAR).
Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4
42 matches
Mail list logo
