tapestry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Tapestry 3.1 compatibility with 3.0?
Date Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:16:20 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message