tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tsvetelin saykov <tsvetelin.say...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Adding annotation support to Tapestry 4
Date Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:08:05 GMT
Dear All,

From my point of view for half of the companies/users that use
Tapestry the migration to java 5 will not be a problem, but it become
a issue for a companies with huge codebase or based on application
servers.
2 weeks ago I participate to discussion about Java 5 in one of the
companies close to me, and the decision was to use 1.4 for production
and 5 for blueprints application and research. In their case migration
to Java 5 could be a problem.

I prefer to keep Tapestry independent from Java 5 now.

Tsvetelin


On 6/9/05, Richard Lewis-Shell <rlewisshell@mac.com> wrote:
> I was hoping to get a little more feedback from the others here before
> deciding whether this needed to be put to a vote...
> 
> The main issue to me is whether requiring JDK 5 to BUILD Tapestry is
> going to be workable?  If there's going to be problems there, we might
> be able to look at some sort of conditional compilation for the annotations.
> 
> Richard
> 
> Ron Piterman wrote:
> > So why not vote on adding it as an (unmature) extention to the tapestry
> > project?
> >
> >
> > ציטוט Richard Lewis-Shell:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think we should add annotation support to Tapestry 4.  The initial
> >> hard work has already been done by Joni
> >> (http://paloalto.laughingpanda.com/mediawiki/index.php/Tapestry_Annotations),
> >> so this would mostly be a matter of merging his work (which has been
> >> deliberately compatibly licensed BTW).  The benefit seems clear - and
> >> we can claim support for one of Java 5's most interesting features
> >> (and by extension, thus Java 5 itself).  The downside would be that we
> >> would have to use Java 5 to build Tapestry.  Is that going to be a
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> Because this is a completely new feature, I do not see a good reason
> >> to wait.  Does anyone else?
> >>
> >> There is another reason I am interested in seeing this incorporated
> >> into Tapestry sooner rather than later - one of encouraging our user
> >> community.  It seems to me that we are a strange open-source project -
> >> we have a very good/strong user community, but not such a strong
> >> developer community.  We are currently very Howard-centric - there is
> >> a lot of looking to Howard to guide us/tell-us-how-it-will-be (eg.
> >> recently it was suggested that template defaults were "in Howard's
> >> hands", and this attitude permeates on the -user list).  While Howard
> >> has done an incredible job of getting us this far, there is only so
> >> much one person can do, even if that person is Howard!!!  I think we
> >> run the very real risk of losing relevance to other popular projects
> >> in the same space (JSF, struts etc) with more active developer
> >> communities.  We are the only ones who can change that, and we do it
> >> (IMO) by encouraging users to contribute more to the project, and the
> >> obvious way to encourage user contribution is to incorporate those
> >> contributions that fit well with Tapestry into the framework itself.
> >>
> >> To bring this back to the here and now, annotation support is such a
> >> user-contribution that I think fits well with Tapestry.
> >>
> >> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
>
Mime
View raw message