Maybe call it tapestry-components instead of tapestry-corelib, to be clearer?
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 11:37 AM Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 6:31 AM Ilya Obshadko <xf...@xfyre.com> wrote: > > > My application still runs on 5.4-beta-6 due to various breaking component > > changes introduced in later versions. > > > The ones in the other thread? If not, please post them here so we can > discuss them. > > > > I'm quite happy with it, but I'm > > getting concerned about outdated upstream dependencies (like Hibernate). > > > > Please file a Jira ticket about them. > > > > So I did the following: > > > > - upgraded everything to 5.4.5, adding tapestry-core to exclusions > > - added tapestry-core 5.4-beta-6 as a separate Maven dependency and > > excluded its upstream dependencies to other components. > > > The resulting hybrid of 5.4.5 and 5.4-beta-6 seems to work fine (although I > > didn't test everything yet). > > > > I have a question to Thiago, Lance and other committers - do you guys see > > any potential issues with this approach? Anything I might be missing? > > > > I don't see any potential issues, although I wouldn't guarantee they > wouldn't happen, even if I think the probability is very low. > > > > On a related note: would it be possible to consider releasing > > *tapestry-corelib* (core components) as a completely separate artifact? > > This would make the maintenance a ton easier for edge cases like mine > (when > > updating to the latest components has a prohibitive cost). > > > > This is something we can do and it's been already suggested by someone else > in this mailing list which likes the Tapestry support for webapps (request > filters, dispatchers, resource support, etc), but doesn't actually use > pages and components. Since there's a plan to support Java 9 modules, if we > want to do a tapestry-corelib, we should do it sooner rather than later. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > -- > > Ilya Obshadko > > > > > -- > Thiago >
