I currently rate getting a stable 5.1 release out at a higher priority than GAE compatibility. I'm really in a bug fixing mode now, and retooling the template parser (again!) is a bit more work than I want to take on. We do have some very fine tests, so if someone else wants to take a crack at it, that may be good. The pain of going back to a SAX parser, or the relative inefficiency of a DOM parser, makes keeping with StAX look good to me.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Fernando Padilla <f...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > cool. all valid points. :) :) :) > > Alex Kotchnev wrote: >> >> Fernando, >> you're so right, I will probably have to wait a few weeks or >> months. I mentioned something, as there have been a couple of >> discussions on the subject on the list, and on top of that Howard >> asked what the showstoppers were to releasing 5.1 . I think that this >> is a good way to rephrase the question "are there any showstoppers in >> 5.1" as "what are the things stopping you from moving your 5.0 app to >> 5.1". In other words, 5.1 has quite a bit of nice improvements, but if >> there are things holding people back on 5.0.18, then it must be >> something significant. >> >> On the sentiment that GAE is not all that important to complain >> and put pressure (btw, I wasn't complaining or applying pressure, just >> trying to start a good discussion that would be beneficial to 5.1). It >> seems to me that GAE is a bit like the iPhone : it's nothing all that >> new (e.g. if you wanted Java hosting you could have gotten it before >> GAE, just like if you wanted a smartphone you could have gotten one >> long before the iPhone). However, to a large extent it has become the >> measuring stick for frameworks because of Google's visibility : if >> your framework runs on GAE, it's ahead of the game, if it doesn't, >> it's behind. >> >> On the subject of scalability and GAE : most of the apps that I >> have in mind are small and probably wouldn't warrant buying hosting >> for, and thus are ideal candidates for GAE . On a separate note, I see >> GAE as a huge opportunity for providing services for small businesses >> : e.g. getting them on Google Apps is an easy sell, then the upsell >> from Google Apps to custom GAE apps is a piece of cake. Thus, the >> frameworks that DO run on GAE will have an advantage in spurring >> further adoption in that arena. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alex Kotchnev >> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Fernando Padilla <f...@alum.mit.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>> Don't forget right now GAE/Java is really really beta. You are only >>> allowed >>> to have 30 cuncurrent threads? Unless your app is only serving a small >>> number of users, I can't vote to use GAE/Java for actual production apps, >>> not yet.. >>> >>> And like someone just said, this just came out a week ago. GAE/Java is >>> not >>> a priority feature in this landscape, not yet.. >>> >>> Maybe after a month, if Tapestry is still not working in GAE/Java, then >>> start ratcheting up the pressure and complaints.. sorry. >>> >>> So I guess if it's really really important for you, you won't be able to >>> upgrade to 5.1 for a few more weeks.. sorry. >>> >>> Alex Kotchnev wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not sure about everyone else, but for me this is a BIG issue and >>>> is one of the reasons holding me back from moving my app to the 5.1 >>>> beta. Most likely I'll hold off on upgrading to 5.1 final if it >>>> doesn't support GAE. >>>> >>>> Howard was asking earlier about any showstoppers preventing 5.1 from >>>> moving forward - this is one for me. Maybe this would be a good >>>> feature for 5.2, who knows. Is anyone else holding off on taking up >>>> 5.1 for this reason ? Other reasons ? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Alex Kotchnev >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Christian Köberl >>>> <tapestry.christian.koeb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I grepped over the tapestry-core sources for "javax.xml.stream" and >>>>> only >>>>> found them imported in TemplateParser and StaxTemplateParser. >>>>> Would it then be sufficient to just contribute another TemplateParser >>>>> which >>>>> isn't using Woodstox (maybe the one from 5.0.1.8)? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I just tried to eliminate Woodstox and to use "pure" Stax API for >>>>> template parsing. This wasn't that difficult (see >>>>> http://derkoe.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/tapestry-51-woodstox/). >>>>> >>>>> With plain Stax I still get the same error in TemplateParser. Maybe I >>>>> will try to switch back to the 5.0.18 one when I have time. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Chris >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> >>>>> http://n2.nabble.com/Java-support-added-to-Google-AppEngine-tp2605876p2643391.html >>>>> Sent from the Tapestry Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator of Apache Tapestry Director of Open Source Technology at Formos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
