You said: "I guess there will be two questions to ask when the time comes: What is the best framework? Are there likely to be sweeping changes after T5? I'm inclined to agree with HLS that after T5, it should be possible to make changes under the hood without breaking existing code."
I don't know on what basis you are making this conclusion. The only facts that I have to go by are: 1) Past performance: Changes between T3, T4 and T5 2) Pace of technology change 3) Stated objectives/design principles/priorities by Tap devs. "it should be possible to make changes under the hood without breaking existing code" => I've been around long enough to know how that works! --------------- I can see your points, but I disagree. With regard to the dramatic changes between 4.x and 5, I think it is worth it to go through short-term pain for long-term gain. I have seriously questioned my choice of Tapestry because of these changes but keep coming up with, "Wow, this is how it should be done!" If I look at the applications I've done in 4.0.x, I have good separation between the layers. I have investments in the CSS, and the HTML that will largely be retained, as well as all of the services, security and persistence infrastructure. I will probably go from 4.0.2 to 5.0.x because I currently don't need the AJAX functionality, though I would certainly go to 4.1.x if a project comes up where I need it. Maybe JSF is where your future lies. If I were you, since there seems to be no serious time-pressure, I would look at your T3 applications and think about preparing for a move. Start refactoring now to ensure good separation that will help you regardless of what you pick as your T3 successor. I guess there will be two questions to ask when the time comes: What is the best framework? Are there likely to be sweeping changes after T5? I'm inclined to agree with HLS that after T5, it should be possible to make changes under the hood without breaking existing code. IMHO Jonathan > -----Original Message----- > From: kranga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:23 AM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: T5 vs T4 vs Community > > We invested in T3 and are sticking with it until JSF matures some more > (with > Infragistics releasing their component base for JSF, thats a great boost). > Clearly the Tapestry developers are in the pursuit of new > features/technologies rather than building up a community. Not that there > is > anything wrong with that, it is just their priority. However, the > consequence is reflected in the "niche and esoteric" nature of Tapestry > with > a glaring lack of widespread use. Tapestry gives you no lock-in and for > every upgrade you think of, you are given the opportunity to evaluate any > other framework out there :) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martino Piccinato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:39 AM > Subject: Re: T5 vs T4 vs Community > > > > Well, I know it's not T4 => T5, I was just adding a possible source of > bad > > perception due to this misconception (and to misnaming...?) > > > > I think that the fact of not having a stable T4 "ajax ready" release add > > confusion to this. A customer thinking that T4 => T5 might think "well > > they > > are not pushing that much on T4 with ajax because they are already > working > > on T5, so as I want to work with Ajax why should I work with T4 that > will > > be > > soon outdated and not retrocompatible with T5?". And so on... > > > > > > > > > > And actually having > > > > On 3/29/07, Andrea Chiumenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Martino, > >> your comment is because you consider T4=>T5 as the major part of people > >> does. > >> > >> On 3/29/07, Martino Piccinato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > I think another bad perception might origin from the fact of having > the > >> T4 > >> > "Ajax ready" 4.1 release still not released as stable after quite a > >> > long > >> > time and a completely new not retrocompatible T5 appear (the same to > >> > me: > >> > not > >> > critiques, just observations). > >> > > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
