IMHO creating more "high level" components and better documentation are the things to spend time on, if not even crucial and certainly not switching JS library just after the framework was released.
Regards, Borut 2009/2/1 <farm...@linagora.com> > > Whether or not one "likes" jQuery or not isn't the point. Tapestry is > > built with prototype, and it works. That's the point. Were it built with > > jQuery, I would have raised the same question if the suggestion of > > switching to prototype had been brought up. It's not my preference > > that's behind my resistance, it's the simple pragmatism of "if it ain't > > broke don't fix it." On the other hand, the prospect of a pluggable JS > > framework is interesting and I'm all for that. That is a feature; an > > improvement. A wholesale switch from prototype to jQuery just doesn't > > seem like time well-spent. > > > Can't agree more :) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
