So, you suggest waiting until the product is completely finished/usable before worrying about backward compatibility at all? I don't know about that. It might be wise to consider backward compatibility issues while architecting it. I don't think it's too early to start raising the red flag when the person designing it is already saying that it's going to be "very difficult" to migrate existing applications to T5. I'm not saying that I think T5 should be completely constrained by backward compatibility concerns, but it would be good to think "how would I migrate a T4 application if T5 were architected this way" while making design decisions, since a migration path has been promised and if it's that difficult to provide, it may take a long time before a reliable/robust solution comes out.
The funny thing is that nobody has really talked about (at least from my recollection) providing a migration path from T3 to T5 yet, either. That's going to cover a lot of folks. Many didn't upgrade to T4 because of the potential headaches. Those people will still be left even further behind in the dust if there's no easy way for them to migrate their apps to T5. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Zimowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:40 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions There is couple such simple answer to all this: 1) Time will tell.. 2) The beauty of open source.. 1) Why all the fuss about this NOW? T5 isn't going to happen for a while yet, so why all that stress about something that you can't use yet? Use T4, support it, pretend T5 isn't there (because it isn't), and when T5 comes out make the decision to move onto T5 OR see the 2nd point below. 2) I see this as a GOLDEN opportunity to all those who are looking for fame and success in the open source world. I mean, here you are handed a chance to take over a successfull open source project (T4) with ALREADY ESTABLISHED USER BASE that is HUNGRY for future support of the product. So if T5 is not for everyone, and T4 as it seems to be reapeated by many, has lots of room to grow, why not fork T4 when the time comes and move on with life? On 7/28/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes really...That is pretty horribly inappropriate. > > Reading the spindle blog doesn't even give me the impression Geoff has run > off to make babies with GWT either. In fact, it looks like he just released > a T4 compatible spindle plugin. > > Please keep your personal attacks for some other forum, like a private email > or your own website. They aren't appropriate/wanted/appreciated here. > > thanks > > > On 7/28/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ... And that's why Geoff Longman dropped off the boat to pursue something > > more innovative (GWT) having a solid backing by a reputable company. Not > > with by a sole Saddam-like dictator like Howard. He pretends he's > > democratic > > by throwing his ideas under the umbrella "Discuss" but meanwhile he's made > > up his mind already and won't thus listen to anyone. He didn't listen to > > Geoff that's why there's no Spindle for Tap 4. Now he claims on his blog > > that tooling is not important. Howard, maybe not to you, but let me > > educate > > you that there is a vast number of people out there who think otherwise. > > It's time you stop imposing your opinions on people. Remember, Wicket has > > stolen a market share from Tapestry. Now there is GWT. Just wait until GWT > > goes out of beta. I promiss you the following statements would hold in the > > very near future: > > > > Tapestry = a+b; > > Wicket = Tapestry - a; > > GWT = Tapestry - b; > > > > Therefore Tapestry = 0. This would be the result by the time the > > incompatible and crazy Tap 5.0 is released. And I would hand you a tissue > > paper to wipe off your hot tears. > > > > Regards, > > F > > > > > > On 7/28/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Howard, I know you're very innovative and all, but doesn't this really > > > sound > > > somewhat crazy to you? If you really want Tapestry to gain acceptance, > > > then > > > backward compatibility is a big issue. I jumped into the Tapestry world > > > with the 4.0 release and I'm really enjoying it, but if switching to > > 5.xis > > > going to be "VERY difficult", then I don't know if I'll ever upgrade. > > > Tapestry is definitely (IMHO) very superior to the "standard" JSF, but > > if > > > it > > > keeps becoming a "moving target", then it will never gain market > > > acceptance. > > > The big wigs will win out because they support a "standard." If > > Tapestry > > > has the reputation of becoming the "consultant's framework" (as has been > > > said in the past) because it requires so much work to upgrade, then it's > > > going to suffer. It's not that I disagree with the direction you're > > > heading. It's that I don't know whether or not changing paradigms so > > > drastically is a good idea for the health of the "product" or "brand." > > > > > > I agree so far with what you're doing. I don't like the fact that > > you're > > > switching from HiveMind to TapIoCa (that's my little nickname for the > > > Tapestry IoC container), but if you don't want to be tied to HiveMind or > > > don't want to be constrained by the release schedule, then I understand > > > (although you're a big part of the HiveMind community and we can easily > > > accommodate any changes you could need IMHO). Anyway, this is your > > baby, > > > but if you want to gain some market share, then you should really listen > > > to > > > your users. Tapestry is starting to get a bad reputation for not > > > supporting > > > backward compatibility. Again, I think the direction you're heading is > > a > > > good one, if you don't have to consider your current users, but we don't > > > have that luxury. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:09 PM > > > To: Tapestry development > > > Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions > > > > > > Right now its impossible because there's nothing to convert to :-) > > > > > > It will be *VERY* difficult. This isn't a slap of new paint. Basic > > > paradigms are shifting around in a major way. It would be comparable, > > > or perhaps even larger than, converting between JSF and Tapestry 4. > > > Possibly on the order of converting from Struts to Tapestry 4. > > > > > > On 7/27/06, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I know that it's far away, but how easy/difficult will it be to > > convert > > > > an application from 4 to 5? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Norbi > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > > TWD Consulting, Inc. > > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant > > > Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry > > > Creator, Apache HiveMind > > > > > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support > > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jesse Kuhnert > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer > > Open source based consulting work centered around > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
