tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colin Sampaleanu <colin...@exis.com>
Subject Re: Tapestry 3.1 compatibility with 3.0?
Date Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:54:36 GMT
+1 on calling it 4.0. This is what I suggested in a thread a month or 
two ago. I just don't see how, given the common perception of what a 3.0 
to 3.1 release means, that it would be at all appropriate unless the new 
code was completely or almost completely backwards compatible, which is 
not the case here. I actually don't see what the big deal is about 
calling it 4.0. It's a major release, with lots of new functionality.


Erik Hatcher wrote:

> I've been building a new application from scratch using Tapestry 3.1 
> built from CVS (I'll refresh it every few days as commits mandate to 
> stay current).  I've encountered a few things that caused me to adjust 
> my code.  I see some of these items as pretty big barriers for folks 
> adopting 3.1 sooner rather than later or never.  Pleasantly Howard has 
> made the 3.0 DTD's work just fine, but I've been converting to using 
> the 3.1-style of specification files in order to learn the new way.
> The big things I've encountered are:
>     - classes extending from BasePage must be made abstract, whereas 
> this was not the case in 3.0.  The whole abstract thing has been a pet 
> peeve of mine for ages and I try to avoid it by using 
> setProperty/getProperty instead of making abstract getters/setters.  I 
> like that my IDE can allow me to automatically add methods when I add 
> a new interface, but having the class abstract prevents this and adds 
> to the run-time error possibilities.
>     - IRequestCycle API has changed so that HttpServletRequest is not 
> accessible from it.  I understand the reason for the change, but my 
> apps do leverage that capability in 3.0.
> If we're going to make these types of incompatibilities then shouldn't 
> we call this new version 4.0 instead?
> I have been IM'ing with Howard when I encounter these barriers, and he 
> suggested I bring these items to the dev list.
> What do others feel about how compatible 3.1 should be with 3.0?
>     Erik

To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message