I am apparently a bit touchy this week, Kranga, et al. Please
forgive. I also wasn't stating that lack of compatibility was an
industry norm. I was saying, merely, that often (and demonstrably) a
major version number implies a lack of complete backwards
compatibility. That was all. Just that it wasn't crazy to be
unsurprised by lack of compatibility between components in v3.x, v4.x,
and v5.x. However wrong or unreasonable that might be, it is still
explicit in the version policies I cited earlier. But we can all be
glad that Howard and co. are working on making things such that future
releases can rely on V5 apis.
I'm normally not this irritable. Again, I apologize.
Christian.
On 23-Oct-07, at 6:31 PM, kranga wrote:
I didn't implicate you as stupid. You wouldn't be using Tapestry if
you were stupid. I was commenting on you summarily dismissing the
concerns of quite a few Tapestry users about the lack of version
compatiblity and your implying that this was the industry norm.
Look, Howard has carte blanche on what he wants to do or not do with
Tapestry. He states that T5 is laying the foundation for future
compatiblity. So be it. All I can say is that in a few years when
there is the "next new thing" out there and T5 cannot support it, he
may yet again abandon backwards compatiblity. If he does, again, he
has carte blanche. But, you cannot claim that the lack of backward
compatiblity is a non-issue. That is a slap in the face of
corporations and consultants like me who pushed to get T3/T4 adopted
and now look not so good because the corporation is faced with
finding developers who can code to an outdated framework and where
the upgrade path is steep. But that is open source and life. Just
don't call it "normal business practice in the marketplace."
I didn't and never meant to insult anyone personally. No ad hominim
attacks ..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
