I wish there was more related to tapestry in this long post.
just a wish.
John Coleman wrote:
I don't write tests in Ruby to assert my syntax, I write it to assert
my business logic, just as I would in Java.
Of course.
Statically typed, eh? Again, what about all that reflection going
on?
> RoR. Tap 4 has made great strides in eliminating configuration and
> redundancy, and is way ahead of most Java tools at this point. But
> there are still many miles of potential simplification left!
don't keep me on the edge of my seat, but what does "your" Tap 5 not have
that makes it better th
After Tapestry 4 is final, the next project needs to be to create a
comprehensive developers toolset IMO. It's the wizards and
autopromts that
get the beginners roped in. Spindle would seem to make a logical
place to
start.
Good. Even better: aggressively removing configuration and
redund
natyev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,13987,00.html
>
> And nuclear accidents do hapeen too
>
>
>
> --- John Coleman
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,13987,00.html
And nuclear accidents do hapeen too
--- John Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do write buggy tests myself once in a while :(
> > Should we test tests? :)
>
> If you worked on nuke power station software, maybe
> (I hope) y
> I do write buggy tests myself once in a while :(
> Should we test tests? :)
If you worked on nuke power station software, maybe (I hope) you would find
out the answers!
In short, you probably need a code generator to create your test cases. And
this is when you want everything to be as simple a
> Um, noo ... that is impossible, unless you have an infinite
> amount of time to wait for your tests to complete.
okay, I oversold it - you don't really test for EVERY possible input, only
those that you already know will make a difference (there are only a limited
set of states that are nece
> After Tapestry 4 is final, the next project needs to be to create a
> comprehensive developers toolset IMO. It's the wizards and autopromts that
> get the beginners roped in. Spindle would seem to make a logical place to
> start.
>
> John
Agree about 200%; I'd dearly love for users to
> Again folks, write tests - don't think your compiler is helping you
> much. Use reflection anywhere you like, just test your use of it.
Ok, reflection is as testable as anything else - it does however, open a
Pandoras Box for an unskilled programmer to make a mess. What I like about
Java over C
--- John Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Again, tests do not prove absence of unknown bugs.
>
> Incorrect. A white box test, tests every permutation
> of the code, and
> reveals all possible outcomes.
How can we prove that we test all the execution
patches and that all the code in our t
Again, tests do not prove absence of unknown bugs.
Incorrect. A white box test, tests every permutation of the code, and
reveals all possible outcomes.
Um, noo ... that is impossible, unless you have an infinite
amount of time to wait for your tests to complete.
Covering every statemen
On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:30 PM, John Coleman wrote:
Statically typed, eh? Again, what about all that reflection going
on? Let's take the most basic Java interfaces, List and Set.
Good points. Reflection should be kept out of critical stuff like
business
logic, and ideally collections as wel
On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Mark Stang wrote:
Will you be shipping your RoR code out to customers? Or is there a
compiler/code obfuscator?
I work for a University building a web application that we will host
initially, but in the future others may want to install it. The code
will be o
> Again, tests do not prove absence of unknown bugs.
Incorrect. A white box test, tests every permutation of the code, and
reveals all possible outcomes.
John
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands
>I don't write tests in Ruby to assert my syntax, I write it to assert
>my business logic, just as I would in Java.
Of course.
>Statically typed, eh? Again, what about all that reflection going
>on? Let's take the most basic Java interfaces, List and Set.
Good points. Reflection should be kep
Erik,
Will you be shipping your RoR code out to customers? Or is there a
compiler/code obfuscator?
thanks,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 11:45 AM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
On Dec 12, 2005
There you have a point!. The discussion is fun. But it goes nowhere, of
course, hehehe.
I'm just wondering how do you catch a typo in a nested if / if
statement...? Ohh sorry, yes... you unit test it ^o).
Now, as a matter of fact, Java is pretty dynamic in some respects. Now
that you talked
Erik Hatcher wrote:
And my point is, and has been that static type checks are a false
illusion of "safety".
Or rather, dynamic typing is the "cowboy" style of programming ;).
Look at all the reflective magic that occurs under the covers of
Tapestry. Without tests, it would be a huge house of
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev
> wrote:
> > Clarification: al I am saying does not mean that
> we do
> > not need test. It means that tests are useful but
> not
> > the reason for throwing away safety net of static
> type
> > che
And my point is, and has been that static type checks are a false
illusion of "safety".
So are tests.
P
_
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---
On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Shawn Church wrote:
Since you have some experience with older/legacy databases, how would
Ruby/RoR stack up against Java/Tapestry in regard to legacy databases
and multiple databases? Ruby and RoR in particular is appealing,
but my
applications must reliably su
On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Ido M. Tamir wrote:
On Monday 12 December 2005 12:03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Personally I see no reasons to worry about RoR yet.
No worries at all, you're right. I'm building the front-end of my
main project in
On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Clarification: al I am saying does not mean that we do
not need test. It means that tests are useful but not
the reason for throwing away safety net of static type
checks.
And my point is, and has been that static type checks are a false
It's definitely too harsh to say that tests "don't help much." Good
tests can help a great deal. They can also be a pain in the ass to
maintain ... but they can help if done well.
*However*, Konstantin's fundamental point is a good one: tests can't
prove your code is correct. Actually, no a
Of course dev tests and compilation test different
things. But it is silly to write tests for things
which could be caught by compiler or somehow else
automatically.
On your example:
- writing test for this bug does not guarantee that
there is no another bug;
- writing test for a bug
On Monday 12 December 2005 12:03, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > Personally I see no reasons to worry about RoR yet.
>
> No worries at all, you're right. I'm building the front-end of my
> main project in RoR, and love it.
How is your back-end imp
On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:15 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
I guess the point is that statically typed language
allows getting rid of many tests because compiler can
do them.
Your point does not hit home with me or any of the skilled folks I've
been around.
With dynamic access of any kind (R
On Dec 12, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Tests cannot prove that code is bug free. It is simple
as that.
They definitely help, but not that much
Wow, where do you people come from with such a low opinion of testing?
They don't help much? Then I argue you're not writing the r
ROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
> Tests cannot prove that code is bug free. It is simple
> as that.
>
> They definitely help, but not that much
>
> --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTE
I don't find it as clean as you do for the simple reason that it's
yet one more moving part I have to deploy and test. It's yet one more thing
a potential client could forget about, and it's yet one more thing I have to
educate my support folks on.
"Ok, so, lets learn a little ab
compiled application gives you a fighting chance.
Just my $0.02, but I'm sticking with java for the foreseeable future.
--- Pat
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Ignatyev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:15 AM
> To: Tape
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Leonardo Quijano
> Vincenzi wrote:
> >> Compilation isn't the key though. Testing (not
> just unit testing)
> >> is.
> > As I like to re-test my 300+ pages applications
> for a syntax error
> > after a refactoring
O my goodness! There are more Php applications, so
what?
> >
>
http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/RealWorldUsage
> >
> > Not a toy?! Awww, that's no fun. The world is
> our toy - let's play.
> Now it gets interesting! Of course, there are a lot
> of Javascript
> examples too, and
I would say that Tapestry is not harder for testing
than other web frameworks. Things are OK as long as
data manipulation logic is kept out of pages and
components in the business layer objects, no matter
how they get called. So the critical things can be
tested outside of web container. For the UI
Since you have some experience with older/legacy databases, how would
Ruby/RoR stack up against Java/Tapestry in regard to legacy databases
and multiple databases? Ruby and RoR in particular is appealing, but my
applications must reliably support DB2/400 in addition to MySQL (and
sometimes others)
Tests cannot prove that code is bug free. It is simple
as that.
They definitely help, but not that much
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Leonardo Quijano
> Vincenzi wrote:
> > (now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting
> language... but it's not
> >
On Dec 12, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
Compilation isn't the key though. Testing (not just unit testing)
is.
As I like to re-test my 300+ pages applications for a syntax error
after a refactoring. I can use my time better, you know.
Ever hear of "continuous integrati
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
As a matter of fact Tapestry *is* hard to test. But maybe I just need
to investigate a bit. And yes, it is a point of risk in my
application, that I'd like to see solved from a compilation point of
view. I just
On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
You were speaking of a compiler regarding this though, not a unit
test. So currently you're using Tapestry without compilation OR
unit tests for your fragile expressions in your templates. So
you've got neither. H.
As a ma
Erik Hatcher wrote:
You were speaking of a compiler regarding this though, not a unit
test. So currently you're using Tapestry without compilation OR unit
tests for your fragile expressions in your templates. So you've got
neither. H.
As a matter of fact Tapestry *is* hard to test. But m
On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:49 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
Ah ha! Now we're to the fun stuff successful compilation is
a false sense of "correctness". So what if you got your syntax
correct - your program still could have logical flaws.
Does your compiler check that you've got you
Erik Hatcher wrote:
Compile and ship it! :)
I didn't say unit tests were unnecessary.
Ah ha! Now we're to the fun stuff successful compilation is a
false sense of "correctness". So what if you got your syntax correct
- your program still could have logical flaws.
Does your compil
On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
(now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting language... but it's
not strong.. and I don't like that! It just produces buggy code,
IMO)
In other wo
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
(now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting language... but it's not
strong.. and I don't like that! It just produces buggy code, IMO)
In other words, you don't write unit tests.
Erik
--
On Dec 8, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Personally I see no reasons to worry about RoR yet.
No worries at all, you're right. I'm building the front-end of my
main project in RoR, and love it.
I love the Ruby language, and RoR is a great DSL on top of Ruby.
Tapestry has t
looked
at it I was programming in a glorified version of notepad. (and I
think
somebody mentioned there's an eclipse plugin now).
--- Pat
-Original Message-
From: Cosmin Bucur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:32 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Patrick Casey wrote:
Honestly, I looked into it and couldn't figure out what all the fuss
is about. For a little toy crud application it's nice and fast,
but, hey,
so's python, perl, or PHP.
It just doesn't have to features I'd need to build what I
On Dec 8, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote:
(now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting language... but it's not
strong.. and I don't like that! It just produces buggy code, IMO)
In other words, you don't write unit tests.
Erik
--
here it is:
==
I have been there too and was a bit surprised by the
Ruby promotion.
There is also pretty long discussion regarding RoR on
TSS:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37121
Let me post here few excerpts from the discussion:
+
Bruce Tat
and once u have a yahoo id , it tells you , u're not a member of the group :)
On 12/8/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need a Yahoo Id for that 8-).
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seajug/message/10159
> >
> --
> Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vi
collective knowledge here
On 12/8/05, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) wrote:
> Yes, you wouldn't want to de-Rail the discussion, after all ...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Cosmin Bucur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:16 PM
> To: Tapestr
I need a Yahoo Id for that 8-).
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seajug/message/10159
--
Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
DTQ Software
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comma
hursday, December 08, 2005 12:32 PM
> > To: Tapestry users
> > Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
> >
> > I nevevr tried coding rails ... but i did watch some of the demos and
> > it looks promising , at the same time restrictive . Not sure about
> > ruby a
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seajug/message/10159
--- Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I'll put it in few words.
>
> I *hate* scripting languages.
>
> (now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting
> language... but it's not
> strong.. and I don't like that! It just pro
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:32 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
>
> I nevevr tried coding rails ... but i did watch some of the demos and
> it looks promising , at the same time restrictive . Not sure about
> ruby as
ber 08, 2005 3:16 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
>
>
> you know ... to throw the discusion COMPLETLY offtopic now
>
> On 12/8/05, Cosmin Bucur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > since we're discussing efficient development with .net , i
Yes, you wouldn't want to de-Rail the discussion, after all ...
-Original Message-
From: Cosmin Bucur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:16 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
you know ... to throw the discusion COMPLETLY off
ve been resolved
since then (the n+1 selects problem has been solved for example).
--- Pat
> -Original Message-
> From: Cosmin Bucur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:15 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
&
Well I'll put it in few words.
I *hate* scripting languages.
(now, maybe Ruby's not a strict scripting language... but it's not
strong.. and I don't like that! It just produces buggy code, IMO)
- Javascript is a weird case. At least I accept it as it is. But why
more languages like that?
-
Patrick Casey wrote:
Please see comments below :)
I agree about 80% with what you have to say; I find programming in
.net to be sort of like using public transport. It gets me 80% of the way
there very efficiently, but then I'm ** and have to walk the last half
mile throu
gt;
> On 12/8/05, Patrick Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Please see comments below :).
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 08,
> > From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:01 PM
> > To: Tapestry users
> > Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
> >
> > Well actually you can download Java and buy MyEclipse for $30.
> >
&
Please see comments below :).
> -Original Message-
> From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:01 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
>
> Well actually you can download J
Well actually you can download Java and buy MyEclipse for $30.
Now you actually have a point... but the problem is, what happens when
it just doesn't work? When you pop in the .NET CDs, start developing,
and notice you don't have good internationalization, that your pages
suck at web standards
2) Push "install".
>3) Swap CDs as needed.
>
> --- Pat
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:18 AM
> > To: Tapestry users
> > Subject: Re: tapestr
make an actual .net app I have too ...
1) Put .net cd in drive.
2) Push "install".
3) Swap CDs as needed.
--- Pat
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:18 AM
> To:
You already know that 90% of everything is crap, right? That's life...
but don't alienate the few good professionals because of the rest of
idiots who go for the easy way around everything.
--
Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
DTQ Software
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Well, it is old saying to "t
Well, it is old saying to "the road to hell is paved
with good intentions".
For the 'idea' of marketing there is the healthy
reality check:
Lets turn on TV and count how many advertisements
fall into category of "crap" and how many "do provide
information", same exercise might be repeated with
be no need for marketing ...
On 12/8/05, Mark Stang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, if you don't mind working and deploying on windows.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 11:18 AM
> To: Tapestry
Sure, if you don't mind working and deploying on windows.
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 11:18 AM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
WellI actually think .Net is pretty damn cool personally, I just
yours ;-).
And any place I go into, if they don't have a UI in place, you can bet I am
pushing Tapestry.
regards,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Frank Russo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 12/8/2005 10:57 AM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: RE: tapestry to JSF conversion
I'm enterta
It's human nature, and a smart individual or a smart group works with
that. How many times have you seen a bad politician end up with 48% of
the votes in an election? They're actually smart.. just that not in the
technical areas but in the people-related ones.
But that's for the people with po
Actually the main thing I *hate* about .NET is that Microsoft and
company think you have to pay for everything. They're so... nineties!
But as long as the .NET open source community opens up more (it's been
doing a great work, but they're years behind the Java one, IMO) I'd love
to see .NET exp
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
I would argue that engineers and good people in
general tend to dismiss marketing instinctively
because marketing is heavily abused and mostly serves
unworthy goals of selling "crap".
The primary goal of marketing is to sell _anything_
without regard to its value and i
I would argue that engineers and good people in
general tend to dismiss marketing instinctively
because marketing is heavily abused and mostly serves
unworthy goals of selling "crap".
The primary goal of marketing is to sell _anything_
without regard to its value and it is largely based on
'mind p
I know what you guys are saying ...
and that's exactly what happends when HR and management people are not
in touch with technology . Then we get people running to .net because
they've read in a business magasine owned by MS that .net is
suppoerior in all aspects : )
On 12/8/05, Jesse Kuhnert <[E
Just my 2c:
The topic of job security is a touchy subject. Firstly
lets push it to the extremes:
Did not luddites were primarily concerned about job
security? I bet they were.
However there are many interesting things are related
to this subject, lets consider a short term success
versus long
WellI actually think .Net is pretty damn cool personally, I just don't
have the time/resources to even consider it in anything I'm doing right now.
Regardless of how evil and f-ed up microsoft is, they have some pretty damn
brilliant engineers working for them here and there.
On 12/8/05, Cosmi
Nahh.. I'm not talking about hiring practices. I'm talking about good
corporate stuff that's useful, such as marketing, and that sometimes
gets discarded by us engineers.
Just to remind people there's more to computing that programming ;).
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
It's unfortunate that hiring pra
It's unfortunate that hiring practices work that way sometimes. I don't
think we've ever hired a developer based solely on the technologies they
use and are familiar with, but mostly on our quick and dirty "just how
intelligent and geeky are you"? blitzkrieg of technical questions ;)
Isn't google
I don't think it offends me, at least. But OS projects have to get
*merit* to override "corporate standards" and that's what a lot of OS
developers fail to see. Last time I check Struts wasn't an official
standard, and Tapestry could go the same path, if it sticks with
corporate values such as
evelopers, but it's
reality in most cases...
Frank Russo
Senior Developer
FX Alliance, LLC
> -Original Message-
> From: Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:50 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF co
y users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
>
>
> true , just like jsp and ejb right ? :)
>
> On 12/8/05, Frank Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because it's from Sun/JSR process. That doesn't make it the
> best, but
> > since we are b
Official Sun propaganda and being part of the J2EE specification ;). But
that's the reason I quoted it. It's a "standard", not a *standard*.
It's just to point out that lots of people will go out for that just
because it has "corporate support" (yeah right!) and that Tapestry
should acknowledg
rank Russo
> Senior Developer
> FX Alliance, LLC
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cosmin Bucur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:39 PM
> > To: Tapestry users
> > Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
> >
> &g
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: tapestry to JSF conversion
>
>
> What makes JSF the standard ? 2 - 3 extra books published ?
>
> On 12/8/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Konstant
What makes JSF the standard ? 2 - 3 extra books published ?
On 12/8/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > Tapestry can be used to create portlets, and JSF
> > supports them too.
> > I think this kind of integration is enough.
> > I think that an
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Tapestry can be used to create portlets, and JSF
supports them too.
I think this kind of integration is enough.
I think that an attempt to mix T and JSF components on
the page does not worth the efforts.
The problem would be for people migrating from one framework
> I wonder if Tapestry should implement some kind of
> JSF integration
> layer. JSF is the "standard" after all. We just
> can't look the other way
> around and ignore it!
>
Tapestry can be used to create portlets, and JSF
supports them too.
I think this kind of integration is enough.
I think
Or Tacos commiters, hehe :P
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
Yes, if someone is looking for some cool points they ought to do this, I
doubt any of the tapestry committers have time for something like this. :)
--
Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi
DTQ Software
-
Yes, if someone is looking for some cool points they ought to do this, I
doubt any of the tapestry committers have time for something like this. :)
On 12/8/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hari ks wrote:
> > hi,
> >I want to know how easy would it be to convert
> >
hari ks wrote:
hi,
I want to know how easy would it be to convert
tapestry to JSF application. Also vice-versa. Idea is
if we find problems in tapestry , we will convert it
to JSF and continue development in JSF.
Thanks,
Hari
__
Do You Yahoo!
These frameworks are very different, such conversion would not be
straightforeward, although there are some parallels. I believe you would
really being doing a rewrite. This would waste a lot of time!
If there is a problem in Tapestry, it could be addressed in this forum, and
the code is open sour
I think u'll be stuck at starting a new presentation layer from
scratch . best thing you can do is decouple your bl layer as much as
you can and then just replace the presentation layer .
you could probably be able to plan this better if you would know both
jsf and tapestry inside out , in which
JSF is not problem free too :)
There are couple of comparisons:
http://sandbox.sourcelabs.com/kosta/web_ui_compare/readme/index.html
http://www.theserverside.com/articles/article.tss?l=JSFTapestry
--- hari ks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>I want to know how easy would it be to convert
>
95 matches
Mail list logo
