Yeah Jesse, I don't blame you. If I were the "Yes Sir" kind I would also say only Yes to my boss on anything without first analyzing myself if what he's doing makes sense. Fortunately I'm not that kind. I first think through my boss's request before going with him or her on issues. And in the environment that I live and work in, that is cherished very much. Better than following your boss blindly anywhere regardless of what. On the other hand, I may understand you. Being a commiter, I can imagine your sole goal may be to do cool things. But remember in the real world people are investing big bucks for results. To them, it's not about what Jesse finds cool and enjoy developing. They want results. Therefore in the real world if you tell people that during any major release they have to throw away their code base and invest another 100Ks' of dollars to be able to enjoy any new feature, all these because you had the appetite to do cool things, then to them you belong to the hobby group and no one would take your product seriously. I hope you would realize this fact someday.
My .02 cent. Regards, F On 8/31/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But you forget that I'm in Howard's camp as well...So please when you mention facist regimes to include me as a leutenient at least. I would make the decision to support it again and again if given the chance. I mock you Mr. Amanfo. ~mock~ On 8/31/06, Francis Amanfo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, Mr. Mind, let me humbly say that I'm not trolling. I'm mentioning > things which I know are of great concern to very many people. > Having read the following post by you on July 28: > > "... the majority of people will expect some kind of backward > compatibility > between T4 and T5 and that expectation would be natural. Perhaps if T5 > is renamed (e.g. 'Tapestries 1.0' or 'Lace 1.0' or sth else) then the > expectation about backward compatibility will not be there?" > > I know you and I are not very far from each other in certain important > issues. Being a Tapestry commiter, I wish you could use your influence to > discourage all these craziness going on with Tapestry of late. Namely, > every > major release equals radically re-inventing the wheel disregarding > backward > compatibility. And that decision made solely by one dictator who wouldn't > listen to his users and community. > > Regards, > F > > > On 8/31/06, Mind Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Howard sugested Geoff as a Tapestry committer entirely based on his work > > on > > Spindle. In addition Geoff specifically asked you NOT to hijack his name > > for > > your vendetta. Do the facts matter to you at all? > > > > Secondly, I presume you have written code that adds the T4 features to > T3, > > > > while keeping it absolutely compatible. Is that correct? > > > > If this is not so, then your repeated comments are no longer > constructive > > criticism, but trolls instead, aimed to further an agenda that has > nothing > > to do with Tapestry at all. Interestingly, the very fact that you > consider > > Tapestry important enough to warrant your attention means that it is a > > very > > good alternative to what you really care about and must be eliminated at > > all > > costs. Thank you, we should be honored that you think so highly of > > Tapestry! > > > > > > Francis Amanfo wrote: > > > > > > Henrik, > > > > > > Stop dreaming. If what you're saying is valid then we should have got > > > Spindle for Tap 4 now. > > > The fact of the matter is Howard just didn't listen to Geoff. With > > > Howard's > > > current opinion on tools, I don't think he would make a tool drive his > > > fanatic and radical design decisions. > > > > > > My .02 cent. > > > F > > > > > > On 8/30/06, hv @ Fashion Content <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> I think the best thing is building on WST and Tap5, while Tap5 is > > >> developed. > > >> The amount of special tooling needed for Tap5 should be limited. > > >> > > >> Judging form Geoff's posts the main problem with Spindle for Tap4 is > > the > > >> large number of possible ways to configure an application. One of the > > >> goals > > >> for Tap5 is to simplify. So if we can start over on a new Spindle > while > > >> Tap5 > > >> is > > >> still in its infancy, we can perhaps ensure that the simplicity is > > >> achieved > > >> from > > >> the perspective of tooling. > > >> > > >> Henrik > > >> > > >> "Hugo Palma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse > > >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > Since Geoff decided to leave the Spindle project i've been thinking > > >> about > > >> > the future of TapIDEA. As many of you know, TapIDEA is built on top > > of > > >> > Spindle, which means "No Spindle" -> "No TapIDEA". > > >> > > > >> > There are several scenarios that can be put into account in the > > current > > >> > situation, and after a long consideration here are my conclusions. > > >> > > > >> > Someone else picks up Spindle where Geoff left off: > > >> > I honestly don't think this is going to happen. AFAIK Spindle was a > > one > > >> > man project so no one else has the know how to quickly get into > gear > > >> with > > >> > the project. Some might think that that person could be me, and > > indeed > > >> > i've become familiar with Spindle internals during the development > of > > >> > TapIDEA. But, there's the free time factor. I just wouldn't be able > > to > > >> > find the time to do it. > > >> > Still, if this scenario were to be become true, TapIDEA would live > > on. > > >> > > > >> > Spindle for T4 dies, a new project is born: > > >> > Ok, so no Spindle and no TapIDEA for T4. What about T5 ? As Geoff > as > > >> > pointed out, T5 support is going to require an almost complete > > rewrite > > >> of > > >> > Spindle. So, in this scenario someone would implement Spindle(or > > create > > >> a > > >> > whole new project) for IDE support for T5, and TapIDEA would > follow. > > I > > >> > find that this is the scenario with the most chances of becoming > > >> reality. > > >> > > > >> > Spindle and TapIDEA die for good: > > >> > Well, there's always the possibility that no one will volunteer to > > >> > continue our efforts of bringing IDE support to Tapestry. In this > > >> scenario > > >> > both Spindle and TapIDEA end their lives now. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > The TapIDEA project will be "hibernating" until one of these(or any > > >> other) > > >> > scenarios become reality. > > >> > I guess now it's up to the community to present their ideas about > > this. > > >> I > > >> > hope that, together, we can give our contribution to making > Tapestry > > >> IDE > > >> > support a reality. > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > > > >> > Hugo > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > 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] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/TapIDEA-future%2C-post-%22Time-to-move-on%22-tf2179878.html#a6071765 > > > > Sent from the Tapestry - User forum at Nabble.com. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo/(and a dash of TestNG), team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
