> I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new next > generation.
I think that would be Tapestry Deep Space Nine. :P On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:28:12 +0200, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh. The fish bit did get kinda carried away there. But I guess > we're still united by the "fillet" designation. ;) > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new > next generation. It gets silly. Either a version or a codename, I > figure. Maybe "sb" for "strutsbuster". > > Christian. > > On 20-May-08, at 06:24 , kranga wrote: > >> Somebody likes fish :) >> >> +1 for the idea >> -1 for the fishiness of it! >> >> I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the >> version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" >> >> My suggestion would be >> >> org.apache.tapestry.ng (for Next Generation) >> >> or along the food line: >> >> org.apache.tapestry.mignon >> org.apache.tapestry.ribeye >> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip >> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse >> >> you get the drift :) >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Edward Gruber" <[EMAIL >> PROTECTED] >> > >> To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >> >> >>> Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really >>> "versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural >>> bases. You might call them three different web frameworks >>> entirely. So there should be no reason technically for them to >>> overlap, and they should have three different packages. You might >>> as well have them by three different codenames, at which point you >>> have >>> >>> org.apache.tapestry.trout >>> org.apache.tapestry.tuna >>> org.apache.tapestry.tilapia >>> >>> Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact >>> that org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should >>> have no bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just >>> making a point) >>> >>> Christian. >>> >>> >>> On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not against a package rename but against the version number. >>>> >>>> The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 >>>> users >>>> now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years? >>>> The version number will still be in the code base by then. >>>> If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to >>>> 2011 >>>> or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5 >>>> package names >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > wrote: >>>>> markus, >>>>> >>>>> i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5" >>>>> but i go even conform with your mind. >>>>> >>>>> if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay >>>>> alienated for that, >>>>> >>>>> but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for >>>>> some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5. >>>>> >>>>> but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world, >>>>> if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow" >>>>> and belive their own mind voice. >>>>> >>>>> 2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version >>>>>> numbers into package names. >>>>>> In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not >>>>>> for >>>>>> technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse >>>>>> developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication >>>>>> might have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. >>>>>> I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable >>>>>> for them >>>>>> to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package >>>>>> belongs >>>>>> to which tapestry version. >>>>>> >>>>>> so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. >>>>>> >>>>>> my 2cents, >>>>>> Markus >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> I agree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >>>>>>>> To: Tapestry users >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question is: would it have been better to just broadly >>>>>>>>> rename >>>>>>>>> org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite >>>>>>>>> a bit >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> discussion back on forth among the developers on this one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would say yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Massimo >>>>>>>> http://meridio.blogspot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
