On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:30:15 -0200, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us> > wrote: >> I would say it's better to favor better functionality rather than >> backwards compatibility in this case. > > Backward compatibility is a very strong priority for Tapestry 5. This > doesn't mean we shouldn't have a T5 version based on jQuery, but we should > continue providing Prototype. We could add a configuration symbol to switch > from one to another.
It's up to the devs (like yourself) how long to provide backwards compatibility with Prototype. A configuration symbol to switch from one to another would be useful. I could also see it being useful on a per-page level when migrating larger apps. >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 1:27 PM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote: >>> We are currently caught between the wrong technology (PrototypeJS) and >>> the need for backwards compatibility. I'm not sure how that will play >>> out in 5.4 but it will (finally!) be addressed. Glad to hear that - what does the roadmap to 5.4 look like? -Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
