Ok, whatever. I give in. I'll go and use T4 and whine at Howard
now. Oh wait, no I won't. I'll work on T5 and try to encourage it
into as re-usable, and less brittle and change-vulnerable a form as I
can, so that there is more likelihood of upgradability. (Howard's
doing quite well about that already)
Honestly, I wouldn't be so hostile at the moment if Kranga hadn't
dropped the implication that I was stupid for merely observing
something about version numbers. Just follow the links. I'm not
saying anyone's wrong for saying that they want compatibility. I'm
just saying (and it was all I was saying) that often (and provably
often - see the links) major version numbers indicate
incompatibility. That's not my opinion - that's an observation. I
wasn't saying it was right, or better. I'm saying it's fair of the
author to do what other software has clearly done before him, and
Howard had the decency to make a major version bump to indicate that
it's a new platform. I suppose he could have called it TapestryNG or
something.
Anyway, I'm out of this conversation. When people are comparing
opinion with observed (and referenced) facts and giving me grief for
it, they should try editing Wikipedia more. There at least that kind
of thing isn't tolerated.
Christian.
On 23-Oct-07, at 9:15 AM, Peter Stavrinides wrote:
Christian, kranga is right. You can't keep telling yourself it is
okay to change the framework to the point that an entire rewrite is
needed to existing code. Some upgrading is expected (and necessary),
but Tapestry will die a quick death, no matter how good it is under
the hood, if you slap devotees in the face again and again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
