Just to chime in one last time because of new thoughts, I would like to
emphasise that I'm still a huge fan of design/superior code ~almost~ being
more important than any other factor.

It's the reason why I chose/still love tapestry. (It can't overcome the
language limitations) Of course there are practical considerations to be
made, but I think Howard has been made to suffer through some binding things
for long enough. ;)

Also, like many other clever people have mentioned, this doesn't mean that
4.0 has to be a dead project at all right? I'm sure a lot of features and
back filling of things can/will still be added to it, but you can't get into
the architecture game without being ok with throwing away some code once in
a while. (imho)

Let's just hope retroweaver will give us all that we want and desire ;)

On 12/20/05, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 on moving to 1.5 for me, anything that makes my life easier :)
>
> I think if the backwards compatibility provided by retroweaver can be
> reasonably worked in then we're all happy right?
>
> It's a tough decision. I don't have time to evaluate retroweaver tonight,
> but as long as it doesn't impose any large design impediments I don't see
> the problem. Everyone is moving to 1.5. We still have plenty of fun bug
> fixes and backward enhancements that can reasonably be made to 4.0 as
> well.
>
> jesse
>
> On 12/20/05, Richard Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Using Java annotations for Tapestry 4 development is dramatically
> > cleaner than doing it with page files. I (and my clients, including
> > the Fortune 100 one you know) would be fine with moving to JDK 5.
> >
> > Besides, we're talking next summer/fall for 4.1, plus time to make
> > sure it's settled in (and with no insistence that people leave T3 or
> > T4 for 4.1). Oracle, etc. would surely have their acts together by then.
> >
> >   ...Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to