I completely agree with you since myself is also very techie. While, if I put the business hat on, things are viewed very differently. I personally have so much experience in this area. Being a Architect, I have to work with different people at different levels, developers, managers, project managers, client managers, client support, bisiness analysts, client architect group, sales, et al. One proposal or solution will go through reviews, reviews. For any solution, you need to have strong arguments to support it. It's a very hard time for me. I like the new ideas, I like to explore new technologies. But please give a path to upgrade, it's very very important to the business world. You know what dirve a company to upgrade: the support, the liveliness of a product. No upgrade path, it's viewed as a bad investment. We had a project that use SilverStream, when it was aquired by Novell. The SilverStream programming model is desupported and no conversion or upgrade path to J2EE are provided. We have to rewrite. Do we use SilverStream any more? No.
I chose Tapestry at first and completed a prototype with Tapestry 4 and dojo. Now the project started, I stopped Tapestry, use dojo completely. One of the reasons is the future of Tapestry is very unclear to me. It is a very risky thing to use Tapestry in a company setting. I think that Tapestry is still in a stage for consultants. To make Tapestry into the mainstream, Tapestry needs to be run like a business. Otherwise, ... ... Although I dropped Tapestry, I still think that Tapestry has some technical advantages, I will continue follow up Tapestry. Wish Tapestry have a good future. On 7/28/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I could imagine doing it. We did the same thing when I worked at a large consulting company. I wanted to leave after the first 4 months(you can only learn so much with vanilla servlets + templating language enhancements), but stayed on to see through to the end on a project they started me on. The only problem with one solid way of doing things "forever" - combined with the only change being clients/products that you don't get to maintain - is that you have a tough juggling act to manage keeping and hiring good engineers, but not quite so good that they quickly become bored and leave. Surely with all of those people swimming around not everyone is beaming with happiness to be doing one thing all the time? On 7/28/06, Steven Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is one of the reasons. There are others. > > In my company we have many (possibly upwords of twenty) web projects going > at any one time in various stages of development. The ability for a > developer from one project to move to, and be productive in, another > project > as priority and resources demand is critical. > > With this in mind we simply wouldn't be able move new projects to newer > versions of Tapestry even if we could spend the ramp up time learning the > new framework as we couldn't get everybody on the same page. Could you > imagine being on a Tap4 project for several months, then moving to a Tap3 > project for several more, and later getting onto a new project with the > latest Tap5. Just keeping it all straight would drive the average person > nuts. > > On 7/28/06, Jason Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Because, a company that has invested a year or more, developing an app > is > > probably going to want to use it for a little while. Over the lifetime > of > > an > > enterprise app, it will undoubtedly need modification (both bug fixes > and > > added features.) > > > > When Tapestry 5 arrives, we can safely assume that Tapestry 4 > development > > will > > stop fairly shortly thereafter (new features immediately, maybe bug > fixing > > will go on for a year or two, but that's nothing compared to the > lifetime > > of > > a large app.) Then there's the fact that, right now it's difficult > enough > > to > > find people with skill in T4, but in a couple of years it'll be > > impossible, > > because most people will have moved on to T5... > > > > If the migration to T5 requires what basically amounts to a rewrite and > T4 > > is > > no longer maintainable, then the 'powers that be' at said company are > > going > > to be a little irate that they've invested so much time/money into > > something > > that ultimately didn't last very long. In fact, they'll probably be > > looking > > for heads to roll... > > > > > > On Friday 28 July 2006 18:48, adasal wrote: > > > Seems I am wrong in my earlier post. > > > Emm, but there is a lot of discussion around the need for > compatibility. > > > Why is it so desirable, it seems to posit a large ongoing project that > > > spans both 4 and 5. Why would such a project need to hook up to 5? > > > Adam > > > > > > > -- > > > > ---------------------- > > backups: always in season, never out of style. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Steven Bell > > -- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
