Francis, Revisiting basic math, if you solve equation 2 for "a" and equation 3 for "b" and substitute back into equation 1, and then simplify, you get
Tapestry = Wicket + GWT That sounds reasonable. I read an article several months ago about how to have a successful Open Source project. One of the requirements was "a benevolent dictator". That would be Howard. I'm happy he's here. (genuflect) I have been watching the Tapestry Users newsgroup for 2.5 years (almost 2 years before my first Tap project) when the traffic was a trickle and Howard was THE developer and handled many or even most of the questions. Now it's a steady flow, and there are separate developers for the evolutionary (4.1) and revolutionary (5) branches. It is my hope that Tapestry will be achieving that critical mass where development can be sustained in both branches for some time. It is my expectation that developers will start to create both 4.1 and 5 versions of their custom components as they have projects on the two versions. Bottom line: It's always necessary to ask, "Where do I want to go from here?" but it's equally important to ask "Where do I eventually want to be?" and that's what the 4/5 divide is about to me. You might also want to check out the archives for Geoff's Spindle-Developer mailing list. The Tap 4 branch was a nightmare to create tool support for. Tap 5 should be easier from what I understand. I miss the tool support (a choice I made when I picked Tap 4 over Tap 3), but I have no regrets. I REALLY hope that there will be tool support for Tap 5 because I do think it is important. Regards, Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Francis Amanfo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:04 PM To: Tapestry development Cc: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions ... And that's why Geoff Longman dropped off the boat to pursue something more innovative (GWT) having a solid backing by a reputable company. Not with by a sole Saddam-like dictator like Howard. He pretends he's democratic by throwing his ideas under the umbrella "Discuss" but meanwhile he's made up his mind already and won't thus listen to anyone. He didn't listen to Geoff that's why there's no Spindle for Tap 4. Now he claims on his blog that tooling is not important. Howard, maybe not to you, but let me educate you that there is a vast number of people out there who think otherwise. It's time you stop imposing your opinions on people. Remember, Wicket has stolen a market share from Tapestry. Now there is GWT. Just wait until GWT goes out of beta. I promiss you the following statements would hold in the very near future: Tapestry = a+b; Wicket = Tapestry - a; GWT = Tapestry - b; Therefore Tapestry = 0. This would be the result by the time the incompatible and crazy Tap 5.0 is released. And I would hand you a tissue paper to wipe off your hot tears. Regards, F On 7/28/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Howard, I know you're very innovative and all, but doesn't this really > sound > somewhat crazy to you? If you really want Tapestry to gain acceptance, > then > backward compatibility is a big issue. I jumped into the Tapestry world > with the 4.0 release and I'm really enjoying it, but if switching to 5.xis > going to be "VERY difficult", then I don't know if I'll ever upgrade. > Tapestry is definitely (IMHO) very superior to the "standard" JSF, but if > it > keeps becoming a "moving target", then it will never gain market > acceptance. > The big wigs will win out because they support a "standard." If Tapestry > has the reputation of becoming the "consultant's framework" (as has been > said in the past) because it requires so much work to upgrade, then it's > going to suffer. It's not that I disagree with the direction you're > heading. It's that I don't know whether or not changing paradigms so > drastically is a good idea for the health of the "product" or "brand." > > I agree so far with what you're doing. I don't like the fact that you're > switching from HiveMind to TapIoCa (that's my little nickname for the > Tapestry IoC container), but if you don't want to be tied to HiveMind or > don't want to be constrained by the release schedule, then I understand > (although you're a big part of the HiveMind community and we can easily > accommodate any changes you could need IMHO). Anyway, this is your baby, > but if you want to gain some market share, then you should really listen > to > your users. Tapestry is starting to get a bad reputation for not > supporting > backward compatibility. Again, I think the direction you're heading is a > good one, if you don't have to consider your current users, but we don't > have that luxury. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:09 PM > To: Tapestry development > Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions > > Right now its impossible because there's nothing to convert to :-) > > It will be *VERY* difficult. This isn't a slap of new paint. Basic > paradigms are shifting around in a major way. It would be comparable, > or perhaps even larger than, converting between JSF and Tapestry 4. > Possibly on the order of converting from Struts to Tapestry 4. > > On 7/27/06, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know that it's far away, but how easy/difficult will it be to convert > > an application from 4 to 5? > > > > Regards, > > Norbi > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > TWD Consulting, Inc. > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant > Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry > Creator, Apache 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] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
