Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
The "take my ball and go home" argument doesn't carry much weight either.
I'd really prefer to see some encouragment here. I've invested years of my
life, and the equivalent of $200,000+ in lost wages, into Tapestry. When I
see messages that accuse me of some kind of int
- Original Message -
From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
> I am hoping that IoC still remains a developers option when using
> T
"Patrick Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
> I've actually bitten the bullet a couple of times on commercial apps and
> done huge rewrites (usually between 2.x and 3.0 versions) and I've been
> burned by my user base virtually every time.
> [clip]
>
> Which isn't to say that you're necessarily go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Perhaps we've lost focus a bit here. I believe everyone has made a point
- - some better in a community situation than others, but all points made.
It would be better if we could disolve this thread and continue with a
basis of problems noted, areas to
Well, these kinds of statements don't help your cause. I apologize
for the making a poor comment. I'm glad that Howard lost over
$200,000 so that you and him can use a framework. There is a
community out here you know. And we like Tapestry. We have a right
to question it's future development.
On May 6, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
Erik, thank you for clarifying things for me. I'm not lost to Wicket.
I was just making a point. ;)
Like my kids saying "I'm not going to clean up my room unless I you
let me eat some candy first". Lousy way to make a point, and it
doesn't
Erik, thank you for clarifying things for me. I'm not lost to Wicket.
I was just making a point. ;)
Thanks again.
Gregg
On 5/6/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
> > I am hoping that IoC still remains a developers option when u
On May 6, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
I am hoping that IoC still remains a developers option when using
Tapestry.
Of course it is. How could it not be? You could use Spring in
Tapestry 3.0 just fine, and there is nothing any Java project could
do to prevent you from using Sprin
I don't understand why people will subscribe to an IoC container for thier
applications (which are often relatively trivial) and not for an underlying
framework, especially one with the internal complexity and extensibility of
Tapestry. 3.0, lacking an IoC container, was largely tapped out in
ick - there are lots of features (e.g. rewind cycle)
that
> > can be worked on. The documentation - which is outdated (including the
book)
> > can be brought up-to-speed. The famed Tapestry learning curve can be
> > addressed with good examples ...
> >
> > In the end, OSS
> From: Brian K. Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:01 AM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> While I understand the sentiment you pres
first time I've seen this.
-Original Message-
From: Brian K. Wallace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:01 AM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While I understand the sentim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While I understand the sentiment you present below, I must disagree.
You, as a user, *should* have the loudest vote. Not that all of every
user's wants and desires will ever be filled, but the users are the
community. If you want something, speak up. If
, the devs are the only vote that really counts :).
--- Pat
-Original Message-
From: Michael Musson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
Personally I am excited about the prospe
Personally I am excited about the prospects of HiveMind and Tapestry
together. I am relatively new to Tapestry but I work on large systems.
Tapestry in its current version is a nice web GUI. However, Tapestry +
HiveMind starts to look like a powerful application framework for
building big complicat
Anyway... the point is, like ASP.NET, tapestry provides the framework
and inner-workings to create the components; it's up to you to create
the dazzling components.
.NET does a lot more OOB than tapestry currently does though. Just looking
at my .net debugger here, the OOB .NET package includes
Robert Zeigler wrote:
Karthik Abram wrote:
Checkout componentart.com's product lineup (checkout the demos for the
components) - ASP.NET is the real competition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Tapestry 4.0's focus & direction
is, in my opinion wrong. People will use Tapestry if it pr
bert Zeigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 8:14 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
Karthik Abram wrote:
> Checkout componentart.com's product lineup (checkout the demos for the
> components) - ASP.NET is the real compe
Karthik Abram wrote:
> Checkout componentart.com's product lineup (checkout the demos for the
> components) - ASP.NET is the real competition.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again - Tapestry 4.0's focus & direction
> is, in my opinion wrong. People will use Tapestry if it provides compone
Checkout componentart.com's product lineup (checkout the demos for the
components) - ASP.NET is the real competition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Tapestry 4.0's focus & direction
is, in my opinion wrong. People will use Tapestry if it provides components
of dizzying complexity and
20 matches
Mail list logo
