+1 for org.apache.tapestry5 I havent given it too much thought, but sounds ok
Davor Hrg On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Martin Strand < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new next > generation. > > I think that would be Tapestry Deep Space Nine. :P > > > On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:28:12 +0200, Christian Edward Gruber < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Heh. The fish bit did get kinda carried away there. But I guess > > we're still united by the "fillet" designation. ;) > > > > I wouldn't go for "ng" though, merely because what if there's a new > > next generation. It gets silly. Either a version or a codename, I > > figure. Maybe "sb" for "strutsbuster". > > > > Christian. > > > > On 20-May-08, at 06:24 , kranga wrote: > > > >> Somebody likes fish :) > >> > >> +1 for the idea > >> -1 for the fishiness of it! > >> > >> I would go with a distinguisher in the package other than the > >> version so that come T6, new users are wondering "what on earth?" > >> > >> My suggestion would be > >> > >> org.apache.tapestry.ng (for Next Generation) > >> > >> or along the food line: > >> > >> org.apache.tapestry.mignon > >> org.apache.tapestry.ribeye > >> org.apache.tapestry.nystrip > >> org.apache.tapestry.porterhouse > >> > >> you get the drift :) > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Edward Gruber" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> > >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:22 PM > >> Subject: Re: Instability in Tapestry 5.0.12-SNAPSHOT > >> > >> > >>> 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] > >
