Yes, I could imagine doing it. We did the same thing when I worked at a large consulting company. I wanted to leave after the first 4 months(you can only learn so much with vanilla servlets + templating language enhancements), but stayed on to see through to the end on a project they started me on.
The only problem with one solid way of doing things "forever" - combined with the only change being clients/products that you don't get to maintain - is that you have a tough juggling act to manage keeping and hiring good engineers, but not quite so good that they quickly become bored and leave. Surely with all of those people swimming around not everyone is beaming with happiness to be doing one thing all the time? On 7/28/06, Steven Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is one of the reasons. There are others. In my company we have many (possibly upwords of twenty) web projects going at any one time in various stages of development. The ability for a developer from one project to move to, and be productive in, another project as priority and resources demand is critical. With this in mind we simply wouldn't be able move new projects to newer versions of Tapestry even if we could spend the ramp up time learning the new framework as we couldn't get everybody on the same page. Could you imagine being on a Tap4 project for several months, then moving to a Tap3 project for several more, and later getting onto a new project with the latest Tap5. Just keeping it all straight would drive the average person nuts. On 7/28/06, Jason Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because, a company that has invested a year or more, developing an app is > probably going to want to use it for a little while. Over the lifetime of > an > enterprise app, it will undoubtedly need modification (both bug fixes and > added features.) > > When Tapestry 5 arrives, we can safely assume that Tapestry 4 development > will > stop fairly shortly thereafter (new features immediately, maybe bug fixing > will go on for a year or two, but that's nothing compared to the lifetime > of > a large app.) Then there's the fact that, right now it's difficult enough > to > find people with skill in T4, but in a couple of years it'll be > impossible, > because most people will have moved on to T5... > > If the migration to T5 requires what basically amounts to a rewrite and T4 > is > no longer maintainable, then the 'powers that be' at said company are > going > to be a little irate that they've invested so much time/money into > something > that ultimately didn't last very long. In fact, they'll probably be > looking > for heads to roll... > > > On Friday 28 July 2006 18:48, adasal wrote: > > Seems I am wrong in my earlier post. > > Emm, but there is a lot of discussion around the need for compatibility. > > Why is it so desirable, it seems to posit a large ongoing project that > > spans both 4 and 5. Why would such a project need to hook up to 5? > > Adam > > > > -- > > ---------------------- > backups: always in season, never out of style. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Regards, Steven Bell
-- Jesse Kuhnert Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
