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 logic â navigation and etc, simple TheGrinder script can do the trick.
+1 for syntactic argument. Yes, there should be properties in Java in the ObjectPascal style: property String myFiled; [read readMyField;][write writeMyField;] the properties approach can be actually simulated in Java right now by changing naming conventions a little bit, for example setters should return âthisâ and do not have âsetâ prefix, or could just have different names. It greatly enhances expressiveness of the code, lets compare: Event e = new Event(); e.setDate(â11-Dec-2006â); e.setEventType(EventType.PARTY); e.setStartTime(â10 PMâ); e.setDuration((â6 hoursâ); e.setLabel((âNew Year partyâ); schedule.add( e ); with shedule.add( new Event( EventType.PARTY ).on( â11-Dec-2006â).since(â10 PMâ).duration(â6 hoursâ).label(âNew Year partyâ) ); and with properties it can be even better. The âstandardâ Java syntax is too verbose, but it does not have to be especially because IDEâs can generate âbeanâ style getters/setters and human friendly accessors/mutators automatically. As for general dynamic vs. static: whole Ruby thing smells wheel reinvention because it does not bring anything new to the plate. Please read http://weblog.hypotheticalabs.com/?p=59 for more information. If somebody wants to try IMO far superior and different environment for dynamic languages â there is Squeak http://www.squeak.org/ Want to try mind altering concepts: try read and write Haskell code http://www.haskell.org/ Those are refreshing things - not Ruby or RoR! --- Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Hmmmm. > 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 > wonder how... > > I'll refrain from using the more colorful and > expressive word, so I'll > > go a more circuitous route and say "you're wrong". > Bad programmers > > produce buggy code, regardless of the language. > The language itself > > facilitates expressiveness, which Ruby has covered > nicely. Java does > > not allow for a DSL to be built on top of it, not > cleanly. > Actually the small things about Java that hampers > expressiveness are > more related to missing syntactic sugar, such as > properties. More > compile-time fun for you ;). > > > You're digging the whole deeper and deeper for > yourself here. I hope > > your potential future employers don't find this > thread when they > > Google you up. Because they'll be hiring you to > do RoR ;) > > Don't worry. I'm not currently looking for > employment. And past > references are good enough for now ;). But thanks > for the concern! > > (of course, hiring me to play with software toys > would be fun!) > > > > > Again that is a false sense of security. > > It's a layer of security. You're still assuming I > compile and ship? > > > > > Oh really?! > > > > I encourage you to check out the unit test > facility that comes with > > RoR then. Spend a week building a RoR app, not > the hyped 10 minutes. > > Dig in and do some unit tests for the > functionality you're building, > > testing your actions, your business logic, > everything. Cleanly. This > > is not even comparable to the best of breed ways > of doing this in any > > Java application using any of the top frameworks, > I assure you. > Provide me a good real application example that use > RoR and that's not a > toy, and we can talk. I'm always willing to learn > new things ;) > > -- > Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi > DTQ Software > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Konstantin Ignatyev PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000 Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
