I would vote -1 on any sweeping, incompatible change. I would vote -1
on simply naming it Tapestry 6.0. I think the community will accept
minor hiccups, but change package names or other whole scale revisions
are not on the table. Yes, there's a ton of minor things I would fix
if I was starting from scratch AGAIN. No, I will not do that.
If you notice in 5.3, there idea that you can contribute objects of
the wrong type and have the TypeCoercer fix them is huge. We need more
of that. We need to find ways to change and rename interfaces without
breaking contributions & overrides.
To keep Tapestry relevant we need:
- A much improved client-side / Ajax story
- We have the foundation for this, I expect to do much more work in 5.4
- API stability
- The IoC container really helps here, by having many small
interfaces and DI magic to wire it all together
- Marketing & Documentation
Taha and Igor have been leading the way with more blog posts; Bob &
folks have been leading the way with all the great work on
documentation. But we need more of that. We need lots of *users*
posting about Tapestry, not just the committers.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:12 AM, CPC <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is howard opinion? having a major version which is backward compatible
> would be good as perception and js compatibility layer is a good target.
> On Oct 12, 2011 11:05 AM, "Igor Drobiazko" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> C'mon. We don't need Tapestry 6. Tapestry 5.0 was release almost three
>> years
>> ago. Since than we released 5.1, 5.2 and are just about to release 5.3.
>> Isn't it a proof that Tapestry team cares about framework's stability?
>> People who are still bashing Tapestry for being backward incompatible are
>> loosing their credibility. They go to conferences and talk about stuff they
>> have absolutely no idea about.
>>
>> I believe that Tapestry 6 release would cause a lot of rummors and would
>> harm more. Also note that our packages are org.apache.tapestry5.*.
>> Releasing
>> Tapestry 6 would mean renaming packages which would break any existing app.
>> Why shall we do that?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Lenny Primak <[email protected]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > I agree 100%. Let's go tapestry 6.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:08 PM, "Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo" <
>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:43:15 -0300, Bob Harner <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Sadly, I suppose the compatibility issue will stay in peoples' minds
>> > >> until, years from now, Tapestry 6 comes out and is fully compatible
>> > >> with Tapestry 5.9. Or, hey, maybe 5.4 should be named 6.0 just for
>> > >> that reason :-) ... kidding, of course.
>> > >
>> > > Kidding? I think it's a good idea, definitely worth of being discussed.
>> > ;) Even having great, big advancements in documentation, Tapestry is a
>> way
>> > better framework than its own marketing IMHO . . .
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > 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: [email protected]
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Igor Drobiazko
>> http://tapestry5.de
>>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
