"don't selfish" does not help anything. Sigh....
On 7/30/06, liigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tapestry is a open source project. before you requires others do or not do something, think what you have done for it. don't selfish 2006/7/30, Michael Echerer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Norbert Sándor wrote: > > - rethink the IOC container of t5 (use hivemind 2.0 or maybe Spring > > instead of a custom "unsupported" solution) > I also agree that we shouldn't have another IoC container. Spring is the > de facto standard. Either take Spring and work around missing features. > E.g. use naming conventions instead of namespaces or whatever until > Spring adds this, or stick to Hivemind and enhance this IoC container to > meet T5 needs. > > - t5 should come with a compatibility layer for t4.X. Jesse "promised" > > this but Howard said nothing about it. > +1... At least T4 users need a migration guide like the one we used when > migrating from T3 to T4. If it's a mechanical task it might be okay even > if we need to trash a lot. Without a proper replacement guide however > users either won't migrate to T5 or the will migrate away from Tapestry. > > - the development resources should be focused first on the 4.1 branch, > > because the competing development of 4.1 and 5 delays the release of > > 4.1. Users of t4 are currently waiting for 4.1, not 5. > > - the most important one: pay more attention to the needs of the current > > users - without them tapestry would be dead... > Certainly true. Don't forget that Tapestry is a Apache top-level > project. That means "stability" and "maturity", too. > > Tapestry should evolve to maintain its large user base. It's not yet > time for another revolution! > > There are lot's of Tapestry applications out there - even dozends that > made it from T3 release candidates to T4 final ;-) - that should be > maintainable in future and we need a path to T5. No need for a > revolution for T5, maybe for T6 again, but T5 should be an improvement > release first. > A revolution now, might lead to a community split (T4 vs. T5) or even > cause Tapestry to die in the rise of JSF. The best framework won't be > choosen if you can't build on it because it remains a moving target. > > Developing for a moving target is something difficult to explain to > business people. Explaining to develop using a best-of-breed GUI > framework instead of JSF & Co., because it's a, b, c, d, e, does f,g,h > better is easy, if you can tell them that an even better Tx is on the > way we can upgrade to, instead of waiting for the vendor-driven JSF process. > > > Cheers, > Michael > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
