I would in fact argue in the opposite direction. I would suggest that you move all of the prototype code to a separate project just like tapestry5-jquery and let me pick by including the proper dependency.
As it is right now, the core code base includes a bunch of prototype code that I will never use. Just my opinion. -Tony On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:30:15 -0200, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us> > wrote: > >> I would say it's better to favor better functionality rather than backwards >> compatibility in this case. > > Backward compatibility is a very strong priority for Tapestry 5. This doesn't > mean we shouldn't have a T5 version based on jQuery, but we should continue > providing Prototype. We could add a configuration symbol to switch from one > to another. > >> >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: >> >>> We are currently caught between the wrong technology (PrototypeJS) and >>> the need for backwards compatibility. I'm not sure how that will play >>> out in 5.4 but it will (finally!) be addressed. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >> > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer, and > instructor > Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. > http://www.arsmachina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
