I've been saying that it should be possible to add annotation support to Tapestry via an add-on library that contributes to the EnhancementWorkers configuration point. Possibly, some refactoring of the existing code would make it easier to re-use for this purpose.
On 6/6/05, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I Think the idee is great. > However, I ask myself if the Tapestry way of versioning and features is > the "right one" - there are no features in developement. A version (I am > talking about 4.0) is a kind of bulk, which is then very big, and not > very light to digest. On the other hand, features just come in in this > bulk. Why not add feature developement lines into the versioning, so you > can add the annotations, which is a great thing, as experimental, and > let it grow in interaction with the comunity. > > This will also lighten the howard centric manner, because the annotation > (and maybe other experimantals which will come along) will enable users > to influence how it will turn mature, and not just run after it... > > This may help to avoid situations like the one with the default binding, > which seems to bring alot of comfusion, because it looks good on paper, > but did not "grow-in" to test real useability... > > Cheers, > Ron > > > > ציטוט Richard Lewis-Shell: > > Hi, > > > > I think we should add annotation support to Tapestry 4. The initial > > hard work has already been done by Joni > > (http://paloalto.laughingpanda.com/mediawiki/index.php/Tapestry_Annotations), > > so this would mostly be a matter of merging his work (which has been > > deliberately compatibly licensed BTW). The benefit seems clear - and we > > can claim support for one of Java 5's most interesting features (and by > > extension, thus Java 5 itself). The downside would be that we would > > have to use Java 5 to build Tapestry. Is that going to be a problem? > > > > Because this is a completely new feature, I do not see a good reason to > > wait. Does anyone else? > > > > There is another reason I am interested in seeing this incorporated into > > Tapestry sooner rather than later - one of encouraging our user > > community. It seems to me that we are a strange open-source project - > > we have a very good/strong user community, but not such a strong > > developer community. We are currently very Howard-centric - there is a > > lot of looking to Howard to guide us/tell-us-how-it-will-be (eg. > > recently it was suggested that template defaults were "in Howard's > > hands", and this attitude permeates on the -user list). While Howard > > has done an incredible job of getting us this far, there is only so much > > one person can do, even if that person is Howard!!! I think we run the > > very real risk of losing relevance to other popular projects in the same > > space (JSF, struts etc) with more active developer communities. We are > > the only ones who can change that, and we do it (IMO) by encouraging > > users to contribute more to the project, and the obvious way to > > encourage user contribution is to incorporate those contributions that > > fit well with Tapestry into the framework itself. > > > > To bring this back to the here and now, annotation support is such a > > user-contribution that I think fits well with Tapestry. > > > > Richard > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- 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
