That's an interesting idea. I can see pros and cons to it.  For example, the code base may evolve to be Tapestry 5.1, 5.2 or even 6.0. I suspect there may be other problems with running Tapestry 4 and Tapestry 5 inside the same WAR or EAR beyond just the package name conflicts ... I'm not far enough along into Tapestry 5 to tell.

Lets see what the other developers think.

Benedict, Paul wrote:

Howard,

 

Do you have plans to rename the Tapestry 5.0 package as “org.apache.tapestry5” or something else? Since the new classes are incompatible with previous versions, I am concerned that this will force developers of legacy Tapestry sites to upgrade sites in one fell swoop. I’d prefer that I can run Tapestry 3 / 4 alongside 5 in a single application, migrating pages in pieces, otherwise adoption might be too high of a cost.

 

Thanks!

Paul

 

arg-mailgate2.argushealth.com made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This email transmission contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of the email is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this email transmission is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete the email and immediately notify the sender via the email return address or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind

Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to