How did the move from Tap3 to Tap4 require massive rework if you were still in evaluation?
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Bell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 7/28/2006 4:30 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions Picking through the name calling and attacks of the original message I find one legitimate point that hits very close to home. I work in a company that has (at a guess) 300+ Java developers (and we are moving all our other developers over to the Java language). Not long ago (While Tap4 was in early beta) we were evaluating several technologies for web development and Tap 3 was a strong contender. There were things we didn't like about it, but we didn't really find a better framework (this included Struts, JSF, Wicket, and others). As the evaluation went on and Tap 4 was getting closer to release it was also evaluated. The fact that the move from Tap 3 to Tap 4 required massive rework, and in some cases the way of doing thing was completely different, basically killed adoption. If changing versions requires relearning the framework large companies will not adopt Tapestry. I'm sorry, I think Tapestry is the best framework out there, but the investment is simply too large. P.S. That many developers and we are not a software company. On 7/28/06, Rui Pacheco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I support the idea that leaving HiveMind is good. > But not for a new IoC container. We should be using something that has > more > market share, like the Pico Container or the container used by Spring. > Why are we writing a *new* IoC container? Why not standardise Tapestry, > that > does something no other framework does, on components known throughout the > developer community? > > Its all about reuse. Reuse components, reuse examples spread through the > web, reuse the knowledge you acquired on different projects. > > If we want Tapestry to gain traction we must play our cards right, because > the market is hot. > > > On 7/28/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yes really...That is pretty horribly inappropriate. > > > > Reading the spindle blog doesn't even give me the impression Geoff has > run > > off to make babies with GWT either. In fact, it looks like he just > > released > > a T4 compatible spindle plugin. > > > > Please keep your personal attacks for some other forum, like a private > > email > > or your own website. They aren't appropriate/wanted/appreciated here. > > > > thanks > > > > > > On 7/28/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > ... 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jesse Kuhnert > > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer > > > > Open source based consulting work centered around > > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. > > > > > > > -- > Cumprimentos, > Rui Pacheco > > -- Regards, Steven Bell This message, including any attachments, is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy or delete the original message. Also, please be aware that if you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or any action or reliance based on this message is prohibited by law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
