On May 7, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:

Will 3.0 apps work with 4.0 without any changes other than
replacing/including necessary JAR files?  Can you go by the 3.0 docs
and still produce a 4.0 app?  All I have is the online docs and TiA.
;)

I've fought back on a few changes that would have broken 3.0 apps in 4.0, and Howard has restored the API that was removed. I'm not quite sure if it'll work that cleanly though - I believe there are some changes that are required but I'm not sure what they are at the moment.


I'm building a new application from scratch in 4.0, so I haven't tried it myself. I'll try one of my 3.0 apps in a few days and see though.

One way to try this is to replace all Tapestry JAR's (and dependencies) in the binary 3.0 Workbench webapp with the 4.0 ones and see what happens. I haven't tried this either.

Feedback from users would be very helpful in this regard, in either fixing whatever we can to keep as much compatibility as possible, or at least noting it. I personally juggle too many variables and have not noted every little change I've made regarding 4.0.

    Erik



Gregg

On 5/7/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On May 7, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Ralf E. Stranzenbach wrote:


As a newbie on Tapestry i'm currently working on porting a sample
application from Struts to Tapestry.

Does it already make sense to start development using Tapestry 4.0 ?


I think so. I'm using CVS HEAD of 4.0 with no problems. The more folks that use it the better 4.0 will be when it is officially released :)

     Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user- [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]



Reply via email to