... And that's why Geoff Longman dropped off the boat to pursue something
more innovative (GWT) having a solid backing by a reputable company. Not
with by a sole Saddam-like dictator like Howard. He pretends he's democratic
by throwing his ideas under the umbrella "Discuss" but meanwhile he's made
up his mind already and won't thus listen to anyone. He didn't listen to
Geoff that's why there's no Spindle for Tap 4. Now he claims on his blog
that tooling is not important. Howard, maybe not to you, but let me educate
you that there is a vast number of people out there who think otherwise.
It's time you stop imposing your opinions on people. Remember, Wicket has
stolen a market share from Tapestry. Now there is GWT. Just wait until GWT
goes out of beta. I promiss you the following statements would hold in the
very near future:

Tapestry = a+b;
Wicket = Tapestry - a;
GWT = Tapestry - b;

Therefore Tapestry = 0. This would be the result by the time the
incompatible and crazy Tap 5.0 is released. And I would hand you a tissue
paper to wipe off your hot tears.

Regards,
F


On 7/28/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Howard, I know you're very innovative and all, but doesn't this really
sound
somewhat crazy to you?  If you really want Tapestry to gain acceptance,
then
backward compatibility is a big issue.  I jumped into the Tapestry world
with the 4.0 release and I'm really enjoying it, but if switching to 5.xis
going to be "VERY difficult", then I don't know if I'll ever upgrade.
Tapestry is definitely (IMHO) very superior to the "standard" JSF, but if
it
keeps becoming a "moving target", then it will never gain market
acceptance.
The big wigs will win out because they support a "standard."  If Tapestry
has the reputation of becoming the "consultant's framework" (as has been
said in the past) because it requires so much work to upgrade, then it's
going to suffer.  It's not that I disagree with the direction you're
heading.  It's that I don't know whether or not changing paradigms so
drastically is a good idea for the health of the "product" or "brand."

I agree so far with what you're doing.  I don't like the fact that you're
switching from HiveMind to TapIoCa (that's my little nickname for the
Tapestry IoC container), but if you don't want to be tied to HiveMind or
don't want to be constrained by the release schedule, then I understand
(although you're a big part of the HiveMind community and we can easily
accommodate any changes you could need IMHO).  Anyway, this is your baby,
but if you want to gain some market share, then you should really listen
to
your users.  Tapestry is starting to get a bad reputation for not
supporting
backward compatibility.  Again, I think the direction you're heading is a
good one, if you don't have to consider your current users, but we don't
have that luxury.


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Tapestry development
Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions

Right now its impossible because there's nothing to convert to :-)

It will be *VERY* difficult. This isn't a slap of new paint. Basic
paradigms are shifting around in a major way.  It would be comparable,
or perhaps even larger than, converting between JSF and Tapestry 4.
Possibly on the order of converting from Struts to Tapestry 4.

On 7/27/06, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that it's far away, but how easy/difficult will it be to convert
> an application from 4 to 5?
>
> Regards,
> Norbi
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
TWD Consulting, Inc.
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Apache HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to