Again, the differences between T3, T4, and T5 are not really
"versions" in the typical sense. They're different architectural
bases. You might call them three different web frameworks entirely.
So there should be no reason technically for them to overlap, and they
should have three different packages. You might as well have them by
three different codenames, at which point you have
org.apache.tapestry.trout
org.apache.tapestry.tuna
org.apache.tapestry.tilapia
Different frameworks, all under the Tapestry project. The fact that
org.apache.tapestry.yellowtail shows up in four years should have no
bearing on the other three. (again, not that it will, just making a
point)
Christian.
On 19-May-08, at 17:59 , Markus Joschko wrote:
I'm not against a package rename but against the version number.
The only benefit of putting a version number in, is to help tap4 users
now. But who will care about tap4 in 2 years?
The version number will still be in the code base by then.
If the official version number of tapestry is changing from 5 to 2011
or whatsoever, developers will at best be irritated by the tapestry5
package names
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Sven Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
markus,
i voted for package renaming like "org.apache.tapestry5"
but i go even conform with your mind.
if i read the reason for the package renaming, i was relay
alienated for that,
but on the other side, i am not sure, its more easier for
some tap4 user to migrate slowly to tap5.
but i am not sure, in our real fast spinning world,
if there are much developer they say "i migrate tommorow"
and belive their own mind voice.
2008/5/19 Markus Joschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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]
--
with regards
Sven Homburg
http://tapestry5-components.googlecode.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]
