Em Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:34:09 -0300, Piero Sartini
escreveu:
I expect the T5 IOC to live well beyond the web framework portion.
T5 IoC is very powerful.
Yes it is. And it's a pleasure to use.
But at this point I am not so sure if Tapestry IoC is the best answer to
flexibility. Take a loo
> I expect the T5 IOC to live well beyond the web framework portion.
T5 IoC is very powerful.
But at this point I am not so sure if Tapestry IoC is the best answer to
flexibility. Take a look at Struts2 - they are able to switch their DI
implementation by configuration.
This brings them a lot
Heh..the first release of Windows NT was v3.1, so I guess there is
nothing sacred with version numbers. Not to mention Sun marketing.
;-)
I imagine once the paradigms shift enough because of new
innovations/evolution of standards, a new product will have to emerge
to support it. It just won't be
Em Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0300, Michael Gentry
escreveu:
"I just felt the need to reiterate that I don't see there ever being a
T6;..."
Simple: T5.0 => T5.1 => ... => T5.9 => T7.0
hehehe :)
Another path would be T5.0 => T5.1 => ... => T5.9 => ... T5.10 ...
(supposing backward-comp
"I just felt the need to reiterate that I don't see there ever being a T6;..."
Simple: T5.0 => T5.1 => ... => T5.9 => T7.0
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h..
I agree. Breaking backwards compatibility between major revisions is why
developers make a distinction between major and minor revisions.There is
nothing inherently wrong with incompatible major revisions.
The problem occurs when...
1) Major revisions are released too frequently (likely due to
Em Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:28 -0300, escreveu:
In fact, quite the contrary, it dissuades people who are evaluating
Tapestry.
During Tapestry's long history, most people complained about the lack of
backward compatibility. Some even chose to not use Tapestry because of
that. It was the sou
I saw the following comment on Howard's blog and felt compelled to comment:
"I just felt the need to reiterate that I don't see there ever being a T6; I
see a stream of backwards compatible updates to Tapestry 5.1. In fact, I think
the 5.0 -> 5.1 transition was a little rougher than I'd like for
Geez, did Howard pee in this guy's Corn Flakes back in college or something?
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Steen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 5:07 AM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: Tapestry 6
>
> Of course it's no
008/2/18, Pai911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>
>>
>> Joseph Kobe wrote:
>> >
>> > Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns
>> about
>> > Tapestry 6, upcoming in 4th quater of 2008. I must be honest and open,
>> >
i911 wrote:
>
>
> Joseph Kobe wrote:
> >
> > Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns about
> > Tapestry 6, upcoming in 4th quater of 2008. I must be honest and open,
> > hence my reply via this medium, that I disagree with you about re
Of course it's not true!
Emmanuel Sowah and Joseph Kobe are the same schizophrenic troll.
Please just ignore.
2008/2/18, Pai911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> Joseph Kobe wrote:
> >
> > Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns ab
Joseph Kobe wrote:
>
> Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns about
> Tapestry 6, upcoming in 4th quater of 2008. I must be honest and open,
> hence my reply via this medium, that I disagree with you about rewriting
> Tapestry yet again from scratc
LOL!
On Feb 17, 2008 11:34 PM, Joseph Kobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns about
> Tapestry 6, upcoming in 4th quater of 2008. I must be honest and open, hence
> my reply via this medium, that I disagree with you
Ok Howard, thanks for your private mail to me clarifying my concerns about
Tapestry 6, upcoming in 4th quater of 2008. I must be honest and open, hence
my reply via this medium, that I disagree with you about rewriting Tapestry yet
again from scratch and again not being backward compatible
Hi Emmanuel,
If T5 still in alpha, what T6 will be? pre-alpha? :)
I don't think so, just rumour.
In my opinion T5 is the best framework available.
I believe in Howard's work.
Marcus
Emmanuel Sowah wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 6, 2007 4:53 PM
I'm using PageTester as well so be warned and don't break things.
B scaring :)
I heard there is a secret work on T6
Why do you always have to re-invent
without breaking backwards compatibility
going
forward. There will not need to be a Tapestry 6. *
Unless Howard has changed his mind, I don't have any reason to believe
that
Howard is already planning a Tapestry 6 without full backward
compatib
I'm curious, Emmanuel...how much have you contributed to Tapestry?
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 21:35 +0100, Emmanuel Sowah wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Dec 6, 2007 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: T5: Anyone using PageTester?
> To: Tapestry us
-1 troll fud... too bad you can't vote down email list comments.
On Dec 6, 2007 12:35 PM, Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Dec 6, 2007 4:53 PM
> Subject: Re: T5: Anyone using PageTester?
> To: Ta
of the statement above.
In http://jroller.com/WarnerOnstine/entry/why_hasn_t_tapestry_been, Howard
wrote:
*(...) the design of Tapestry 5 was created specifically to make it possible
to continue adding features without breaking backwards compatibility going
forward. There will not need to be a
-- Forwarded message --
From: Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 6, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: T5: Anyone using PageTester?
To: Tapestry users
Howard,
I'm using PageTester as well so be warned and don't break things.
I think this habit of yours of breaking things you t
22 matches
Mail list logo
