Oh functional requirements were long satisfied with 2.6, 2.7 doesn't do anything to change it. The performance benefits are well proven on paper, but it was known from the begininning there'd be corner cases that would emerge later. As painful as it is, I think Jesse made the right choice by deploying the new ognl as a snapshot and letting the community come up with real world samples of where the new ognl breaks. If you must use the latest snapshot but continue with your own development, doesn't excluding 2.7 and explicitly declaring dependency on 2.6 work?
Kalle On 3/29/07, Renat Zubairov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very good comment. I can understand that SNAPSHOT releases are very instable and in our project we are using snapshot releases because the project is not in production yet and we are trying to get the most out of new AJAX functionality in Tap 4.1.2. However based on my experience it is simpler (personally for me) to fix one bug at time and not to fix multiple in parallel, therefore dependency of one very instable snapshot to another very instable snapshot look very wired. I see Jesse is working very hard to fix all bugs and really appreciate it, but I my personal opinion our project will have ZERO or close to zero benefits from the new OGNL version. Performance is important but thinking about performance before all functional requirements are satisfied is in my personal opinion is a kind of premature optimization. On 29/03/07, Daniel Tabuenca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I recall, Jesse announced when the dependency on OGNL 2.7 was added > that things would be broken for a while. If I recall he even included > the particular snapshot version you should use if you wanted to avoid > going to the snapshot dependent on 2.7. You have to keep in mind that > a snapshot is a snapshot and as such is code under constant > development and in most cases not guaranteed to work. If you need > stability then stick to 4.1.1, or even better 4.0 ( if you aren't > using the new ajax stuff). If you are more adventurous try the > specific snapshot before the addition of the new OGNL. I too look > forward to a released version of 4.1.2 and don't think its fair to > complain that a snapshot release is unstable. I thought that was the > very definition of a snapshot release (unstable code in development). > > > On 3/28/07, Ben Dotte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have to agree that until OGNL 2.7 is much more stable, the new > > Tapestry snapshots are pretty useless to us. Jesse has been kind enough > > to fix several bugs I have found in record time (thanks Jesse!) but > > we're still at a point where most of our pages don't work at all yet. > > For now I have a separate workspace devoted to testing out the newest > > Tapestry/OGNL snapshots and I won't commit that to our source control > > system until most of the application works. > > > > If OGNL could be fixed fairly soon I'm fine with the dependency on 2.7 . > > But I would agree that making new Tapestry 4.1.2 snapshot compatible > > with OGNL 2.6 would be a nice alternative if that isn't possible in the > > short term. > > > > Ben > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Renat Zubairov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:07 PM > > To: Tapestry users > > Subject: Latest OGNL 2.7-SNAPSHOT and Tapestry > > > > Hello, > > > > We have a application on Tapestry 4.1.2-SNAPSHOT and since already a > > month or so we have _constant_ problems in running it (basically I > > can't run it at all). The _only_ reasons for that is latest OGNL > > 2.7-SNAPSHOT dependency that is not working properly (see all bugs in > > http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/OGNL ). I can see in the mail list > > that there are some other people having the same problems. > > I'm curious, how it is possible to fix the tapestry version that is > > not dependent on the latest OGNL changes? > > Also it would be very interesting to know how close Tapestry 4.1.2 and > > OGNL are working together, for example may we declare dependency on > > Tap 4.1.2-SNAPSHOT but with OGNL-2.6? > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Renat Zubairov > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Best regards, Renat Zubairov --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
