On May 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > 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. >
I don't see myself getting paid for this :) As much as I would love to, I cannot afford this :) > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
