Actually, I think it's aimed at people that want to use both T4 and T5 in the same WAR. For example, I have a set of data objects in one package shared between a T4 and a T5 app. I'm not about to rewrite that T4 app, os that's a non-starter. Unfortunately, this also means I can't use any T5 annotations on those DOs, which is a shame considering how much simpler it could make things in the T5 app. Now, I'm not looking for the annotations to do anything in the T4 app, but with a clashing names, it's not even possible.
I suspect others will have similar transitional issues while moving to T5. -- Kevin On 5/19/08 5:39 PM, "Joel Wiegman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm with Markus. > > Personally, I'm kind of shocked this is even under consideration. > > "Versioning" your package structure is a band-aid to the real problem, > which is people not being able to control their class-loaders. > > If you deploy your Tapestry 4 app in one WAR and your Tapestry 5 app in > another WAR then this should not be an issue. Per the portability > section of the JavaEE spec, the classloaders of WARs should be entirely > independent. In my mind, the only people this applies to are people who > have deviated from the JavaEE spec, and I don't really see why we should > make exceptions for them. > > People commonly have several differing versions of Log4J and XML parsers > within their application server, there's no reason to make an exception > for Tapestry. > > -1 for org.tapestry.apache.v5.0.12 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus Joschko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:20 PM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > > Looks like I am alone but I don't like the idea of putting version > numbers into package names. > In the highly unlikely case that there will be a tapestry 6 (not for > technical but solely for marketing reasons ;-)) it might confuse > developers. Are the classes in tapestry5 still valid or not? > > Only developers who will run tapestry4 and 5 in one webapplication might > have the problem of distinguishing between the packages. > I guess that they are the minority and it might be reasonable for them > to read the class comments if they are in doubt which package belongs to > which tapestry version. > > so -1 for a tapestry5 or v5. > > my 2cents, > Markus > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Blower, Andy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Massimo Lusetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: 19 May 2008 16:02 >>> To: Tapestry users >>> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT >>> >>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I would say yes. >>> >>> -- >>> Massimo >>> http://meridio.blogspot.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] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
