I didn't implicate you as stupid. You wouldn't be using Tapestry if you were
stupid. I was commenting on you summarily dismissing the concerns of quite a
few Tapestry users about the lack of version compatiblity and your implying
that this was the industry norm.
Look, Howard has carte blanche on what he wants to do or not do with
Tapestry. He states that T5 is laying the foundation for future
compatiblity. So be it. All I can say is that in a few years when there is
the "next new thing" out there and T5 cannot support it, he may yet again
abandon backwards compatiblity. If he does, again, he has carte blanche.
But, you cannot claim that the lack of backward compatiblity is a non-issue.
That is a slap in the face of corporations and consultants like me who
pushed to get T3/T4 adopted and now look not so good because the corporation
is faced with finding developers who can code to an outdated framework and
where the upgrade path is steep. But that is open source and life. Just
don't call it "normal business practice in the marketplace."
I didn't and never meant to insult anyone personally. No ad hominim attacks
..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Gruber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Roadmap
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
