On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:41:02 AM UTC-4, Sven Richter wrote:
All in all this is basically the direction I want to go with closp and > closp-crud. The intention is not to have a webframework, but to automatize > steps that need to be done manually otherwise. > One potential problem with this "web framework" as app template approach is upgrade-ability. When 2.0 of your "framework" comes out, what happens to an app generated from 1.0 that wants to benefit from the new capabilities? It's not a showstopper to the approach. It's just something to think hard about. I've taken a couple of long lived Rails apps from Rails 1 to Rails 4 and while there have been breaking changes with each major version change (and some minor versions) in general it's pretty easy to keep up with the latest versions and there are copious docs (even whole ebooks in some cases) to walk developers through the changes. Cheers, Sean -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
