I've gotten a couple of concerned notes about backwards compatibility from Tapestry 3.1 back to Tapestry 3.0. People are concerned they may have to throw away some or all of their 3.0 applications when they upgrade to 3.1.
Tapestry has historically had a fuzzy distinction between APIs (application program interfaces, intended for exposure to, and use by, end-user developers) and SPIs (service provider interfaces, or at the very least, internal interfaces that are expected to change between releases). The interfaces in the org.apache.tapestry package are generally APIs , and the interfaces and classes is other packages are more often SPIs.
Despite the large amount of refactoring so far, nothing I'd consider an API has changed, though some SPIs have changed.
I'm working to make the upgrade path from 3.0 to 3.1 pretty painless for 90%+ of users.
- It is possible that the <extension> element will no longer be honored (you'll get a runtime warning).
- It is likely that the <service> element will no longer be honored.
- It is possible that it will no longer be allowed to sub-class BaseEngine. Certainly the AbstractEngine and BaseEngine classes have changed significantly, and will likely merge together.
- Parameter directions from 3.0 DTD specs will be ignored, and will always be implemented using the new smart caching connected properties code (yet to be written).
I think it will be a reasonable upgrade path from 3.0 to 3.1. For simple applications and pages, nothing will be necessary. For a minority of applications, there will be some localized changes.
It would be very nice to more cleanly separate internal interfaces and classes from the public APIs. However, doing this properly will certainly break backwards compatibility.
Part of the problem is the use of inheritance in Tapestry. In Tapestry 3.x, your pages and components must subclass from Tapestry base classes. This exposes much internal implementation details about those classes, dragging things that should be firmly in the "internals" category out into the open.
Part of my vision for Tapestry 4.0 (besides stripping the leading "I" off any remaining interfaces) is to break the inheritance requirement. In that release, your pages and components will be true POJOs. This will be an even better separation than is possible today. Something very much like todays IPage/IComponent hierarchy will exist .. but that will be largely be internal to Tapestry. The classes you write will be peers of the actual components. In general, your code will not access the component directly, but will instead have information, properties and services from the component injected into your classes.
I'm very excited by this potential, but first things first ... have to get 3.1 up and running and not leave all the 3.0 users behind!