Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
Well, if we can get enough of the community to say "Howard! Build us
something better, and F**K backwards compatibility!" then I can do
that, and maybe just a little bit more :-)
+1 on that! I don't have any problems on even rewriting some of the Tap
4 components, if it's worth it.
The reality is that I'm percolating with ideas of how to make Tapestry
better, or make something Tapestry-like better, but probably can't or
won't do them because that would totally fracture the community, way
worse than the 3.0 -> 4.0 upgrade ... which, in fact, is not too bad.
Maybe, IMO, 3.0 -> 4.0 it's like something of a 'halfway approach'. It
breaks compatibility, but not enough to warrant being a whole new
framework (for which we can always sketch up a migration plan), and it's
neither an evolutionary framework.
Then again, I don't have much experience with 3.0. Just that if you're
going to break compatibility, then break it all and provide a plugin for
old components.
My 2 cents...
--
Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
Director Técnico
DTQ Software
On 11/1/05, Scott Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally I think I would prefer to have the annotations define the default
situation, and the xml overrides the annotations. That would more useful
overall in deploying to clients and only modifying the xml files if
necessary, without recompiling the source code.
-Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
