According to java package naming conventions [1] the package name should
reflect the domain of the developing organization which is
org.apache.tapestry and not org.apache.tapestry5. These conventions are
there for a purpose (in this case to ensure uniqueness of package names
by using DNS names which are unique) and should be followed.
+1 for org.apache.tapestry.v5 or similar
Uli
[1]
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/packages.html#7.7
Howard Lewis Ship schrieb:
A few people have noticed some significant changes in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT.
What's going on is a limited number of interface and package renames
to support deploying Tapestry 3 or 4 and Tapestry 5 in the same web
application (WAR).
Most of the conflicts were related Tapestry annotations in T4 vs. T5.
The org.apache.tapestry.annotations package was renamed to
org.apache.tapestry.annotation (for T5) so as not to conflict with the
same named package, and overalapping annotation class names, from T4.
I'm still experimenting, but this "dual headed" deployment will be the
best upgrade path from T3/T4 to T5.
I expect to follow up with new T5 tools to make sharing data between
the apps easier.
Sorry for the disruption this late in the game.
The question is: would it have been better to just broadly rename
org.apache.tapestry to org.apache.tapestry5? There was quite a bit of
discussion back on forth among the developers on this one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
