On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:00:41 -0300, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>
wrote:
You're really interested in removing Tapestry-IoC of Tapestry. I see
your good intentions there even if I disagree. I suggest you something
which I'd love to see in this discussion: Tapestry is open-source, so
what about you writing a fork which ditches Tapestry-IoC and use some
other IoC instead? This way, we could discuss in terms of actual,
concrete implementations, not just conjections.
Yeah right. This has no chance of being accepted.
No chance of being accepted in Tapestry source code, but it would be still
a very interesting thing to see. :) It would be a huge
backward-incompatible change that Tapestry cannot do due to historical
reasons and also a promise made by the team to not have another large
backward-incompatible change.
Look at what happened when I tried to suggest revving Tapestry up to 6?
You've been warned why that cannot happen and the reasons are the one in
my previous sentence.
This is open-source: if you don't like something, you can create a fork
and do what you want. If it ends up being really good, it will be merged
into the original project or surpassing it in popularity. In either case,
everybody wins.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
