The annotation code will be segregated into a seperate module. We'll be able to please everyone (I think).
On 6/9/05, tsvetelin saykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > > From my point of view for half of the companies/users that use > Tapestry the migration to java 5 will not be a problem, but it become > a issue for a companies with huge codebase or based on application > servers. > 2 weeks ago I participate to discussion about Java 5 in one of the > companies close to me, and the decision was to use 1.4 for production > and 5 for blueprints application and research. In their case migration > to Java 5 could be a problem. > > I prefer to keep Tapestry independent from Java 5 now. > > Tsvetelin > > > On 6/9/05, Richard Lewis-Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was hoping to get a little more feedback from the others here before > > deciding whether this needed to be put to a vote... > > > > The main issue to me is whether requiring JDK 5 to BUILD Tapestry is > > going to be workable? If there's going to be problems there, we might > > be able to look at some sort of conditional compilation for the annotations. > > > > Richard > > > > Ron Piterman wrote: > > > So why not vote on adding it as an (unmature) extention to the tapestry > > > project? > > > > > > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
