"Finally, let's take a sober look" Isn't that a bit much to ask? I mean, who's sober on Tuesday?!?!?! :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Adam Zimowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:35 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions Well, that's not so much suggestion, as what I think is probably best course of action in the long run. Based on what Howard said (going from T4 to T5 is more like from Struts to Tapestry), the whole notion of migration path from T4 to T5 should be considered in the context: "Should I be rewriting my T4 app in another framework?" (Another framework being Tapestry with a version label increased to 5..) That's what's really happening here. And I have to say I fully support Howard, because as someone said earlier in the thread - he's having fun doing it. Well, if T5 is too much for my app where I invested so much time in T4, I will stay on T4 and maintain T4 if I have to. Or maybe someone could maintain it for me. You James? Next to Howard and Jessee you are like the guru many people look up to regarding this stuff. Maybe someone else will take over T4. I don't know, but it's certainly what it looks like may happen. If migrating to another version of the same framework is like rewriting my app in ANOTHER framework, then I say no, thank you. No migration path for me, because I'm staying on what I have. Then, all it takes is one application written on T4 base whose benefits of maintaining T4 outgrow rewriting it in T5, and you got yourself a life T4.x.x.x.... branch. Finally, let's take a sober look. Of all the production apps written in T4, how many do you REALLY BELIEVE would be ported to T5? I'd say 1 of a hundread, if that. Again, I think time will tell if T4 will grow into its own thing... On 8/1/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
