You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by liigo <li...@hotpop.com> on 2005/04/21 07:37:16 UTC
If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about it?
If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about it?
such as: do a lot of things that do not need to think about back compatible
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more
about it?
Posted by Ron Piterman <mp...@vollbio.de>.
ציטוט Erik Hatcher:
>
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, liigo wrote:
>
>>
>> If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about
>> it?
>>
>> such as: do a lot of things that do not need to think about back
>> compatible
>
>
> Such as what, specifically??
You took my words... :)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about it?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:08 AM, liigo wrote:
> 在 Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:35:26 +0800，Erik Hatcher
> <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> 写道:
>
>>
>> On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, liigo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more
>>> about it?
>>>
>>> such as: do a lot of things that do not need to think about back
>>> compatible
>>
>> Such as what, specifically??
>>
>
> such as: POJO, not extends BasePage class, and other
I'm all for that. However, Howard is pretty much the sole architect
for things like that and unless someone is going to feed him to
implement that then it will take a fair bit of time to do. Unless, of
course, you could implement it and contribute it back! :)
The CVS HEAD codebase is dramatic enough to call it 4.0, IMO though.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about it?
Posted by liigo <li...@hotpop.com>.
在 Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:35:26 +0800，Erik Hatcher
<er...@ehatchersolutions.com> 写道:
>
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, liigo wrote:
>
>>
>> If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about
>> it?
>>
>> such as: do a lot of things that do not need to think about back
>> compatible
>
> Such as what, specifically??
>
such as: POJO, not extends BasePage class, and other
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about it?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:37 AM, liigo wrote:
>
> If we call it Tapestry 4.0, not 3.x, Maybe we would do much more about
> it?
>
> such as: do a lot of things that do not need to think about back
> compatible
Such as what, specifically??
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org