-----Urspr??ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Juli 2006 16:31
An: Tapestry users
Betreff: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions
I really don't see what all the fuss is about anymore. I've
already stated that I'll be providing "some" form of T4
extension to upgrade to T5 when the time comes for it.
I've been wanting some of the features in T5 almost since the
first day I started using Tapestry. I'm willing to go through
the pain of developing a
T4 upgrade extension to it if that's what it takes to get me
there. I feel very comforatable with most of the code in T4 now .
So..There we have it. :)
On 7/30/06, Korbinian Bachl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> this is a very simple minded thinking, liigo...
>
> what would an OS project be without the thousands that use
it ? - that
> tell u what is needed/ not needed ? the businessfolks that use it ?
>
> contributing means more than just adding some line of
code... im in a
> position where i choose the technology used for our company
by myself,
> and the current discussion about migrationpath is the basic for all
> business decisions followed. to be clearly: if there is no
migration
> path, i will see no use in using tapestry4 and 5 - no
matter how good
> they are !
>
> when telling about business applications, i have apps in
mind that run
> 10, 20 years and more - so a basic upgrade path is necessary for at
> least some time, as we all have different problems than just the
> framework to be solved.
>
> choosing an technology usually implies using it a long time - and
> there u need a future vision
>
> regards,
>
> korbinian
>
>
>
> > -----Urspr??ngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: liigo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Juli 2006 15:38
> > An: Tapestry users
> > Betreff: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions
> >
> > tapestry is a open source project.
> > before you requires others do or not do something, think what you
> > have done for it.
> > don't selfish
> >
> > 2006/7/30, Michael Echerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Norbert S??ndor wrote:
> > > > - rethink the IOC container of t5 (use hivemind 2.0 or
> > maybe Spring
> > > > instead of a custom "unsupported" solution)
> > > I also agree that we shouldn't have another IoC container.
> > Spring is
> > > the de facto standard. Either take Spring and work around
> > missing features.
> > > E.g. use naming conventions instead of namespaces or whatever
> > > until Spring adds this, or stick to Hivemind and
enhance this IoC
> > container
> > > to meet T5 needs.
> > > > - t5 should come with a compatibility layer for t4.X.
> > Jesse "promised"
> > > > this but Howard said nothing about it.
> > > +1... At least T4 users need a migration guide like the one we
> > > +used when
> > > migrating from T3 to T4. If it's a mechanical task it might be
> > > okay even if we need to trash a lot. Without a proper
replacement
> > > guide however users either won't migrate to T5 or the will
> > migrate away from Tapestry.
> > > > - the development resources should be focused first
on the 4.1
> > > > branch, because the competing development of 4.1 and 5 delays
> > > > the release of 4.1. Users of t4 are currently waiting
for 4.1, not 5.
> > > > - the most important one: pay more attention to the
needs of the
> > > > current users - without them tapestry would be dead...
> > > Certainly true. Don't forget that Tapestry is a Apache
top-level
> > > project. That means "stability" and "maturity", too.
> > >
> > > Tapestry should evolve to maintain its large user base.
> > It's not yet
> > > time for another revolution!
> > >
> > > There are lot's of Tapestry applications out there - even
> > dozends that
> > > made it from T3 release candidates to T4 final ;-) -
that should
> > > be maintainable in future and we need a path to T5. No
need for a
> > > revolution for T5, maybe for T6 again, but T5 should be an
> > improvement
> > > release first.
> > > A revolution now, might lead to a community split (T4 vs.
> > T5) or even
> > > cause Tapestry to die in the rise of JSF. The best
> > framework won't be
> > > choosen if you can't build on it because it remains a
moving target.
> > >
> > > Developing for a moving target is something difficult
to explain
> > > to business people. Explaining to develop using a best-of-breed
> > > GUI framework instead of JSF & Co., because it's a, b, c, d, e,
> > does f,g,h
> > > better is easy, if you can tell them that an even better Tx
> > is on the
> > > way we can upgrade to, instead of waiting for the
> > vendor-driven JSF process.
> > > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > > 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.
