> On 2018-19-12, at 02:26 PM, Chris Poulsen <mailingl...@nesluop.dk> wrote: > > Perhaps it is possible to find a lightweight,/focused library with a > compatible license today, that tapestry could rely on, instead of > attempting to implement this on its own.
I pretty much like this idea in practice. What I mean generally speaking: If there are bigger or more complex parts in Tapestry’s codebase that need a lot of effort to modernize or fix some smaller niggling issues, I would prefer to use a small library as a dependency if other people already implemented and solved the same problems. If we’ll find out in the future that the small dependency isn’t actually necessary, because we use even less parts from this library, we still can implement an alternative, more lightweight version. > This is obviously not a widespread problem, but it is one of correctness > and it tickles my OCD ;) I don’t think Tapestry has widespread problems at all, and the one huge problem, namely Java compatibility, is already worked on. That said, I feel you and the small OCD demon inside ;) Best, Rafael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
